June 26, 2015

Gay Marriage: Just Do It! (And Welcome to It) [First Posted:March, 2006]

divorcecake.jpg

"Fools rush in where fools have been before."

I'm with Dorothy Sayers on this one:

As I grow older and older
And totter toward the tomb
I find that I care less and less
Who goes to bed with whom

We've got a lot of problems with marriage in this country, but can't we take a step back and draw a deep breath, smell the winds of change and admit that Gay Marriage is a done deal?

It's here. It's queer. So what?

Enough with all the whining and carping and running about with one's hair on fire screaming, "Oh! Gay Marriage. I got the fear!" If a couple of normally insane Americans want to get a bunch of friends or Elvis impersonators together, seek out a whompingly liberal priest, rabbi, minister, or Marryin' Sam to hitch them up... so what?

Yes, so what? If yet another brain-damaged, oh-so-victimized minority wants to move into another white, heterosexual fantasyland after white heterosexuals are finished with it, so be it. Nothing like inhabiting the ruins of a dream to make dreams come true.

Speaking as a twice married, twice disappointed, compulsively heterosexual male, I have heard the arguments and seen the yearning and felt the love of gay and lesbian couples from sea to shining sea. And I have felt their gay pain and now wish only that they share my straight pain. It will bring us together faster than Obama explaining economics to stoners everywhere on the Daily Show.

Deep down all our fellow gay Americans want is to be allowed their right, at long last, to enter the, ahem, Holy Realms of Sanctified and Blissful Matrimony. I take them at their word.

And I say: "Bring.... It.... On! Get... Down! Let it be, at long last, Mission Accomplished!" It is the morning of a decade of fabulous parties in America, and not a moment too soon.


As someone with not a little experience inside the obsessions, the compulsions, the addictions, the rages and the long-term quiet desperation of marriage, let me say that I cannot wait to welcome my gay brothers and sisters to the Holy Realm of Sanctified Bliss. I believe with every drop of rain that falls that any two or three or four or more of gay, straight, quadrogendered, pawed or tentacled Americas that want to get into a marriage should not only be encouraged, but tossed headlong into the institution.... before they sober up and snap out of it!

Looked at in the right light, there's a lot of upside in this Gay rush-to-nup for everyone in this country.

Then there's the immediate after effects.

Speaking of storms, brace yourself and do not be fooled by the return of peace and quiet to these states. Once the initial tsunami of coast-to-coast gay marriage scours this fair land down to a series of moral nubs, a period of calm normality can only be enjoyed for, well, anywhere from 18 to 36 months before.... the Aftermath.

The Aftermath is when the millions of gay believers who have thrust themselves into the sylvan dream of wedded bliss.... wake up to find out that they are, Aieeeee!, married. And when they do, they will want what nearly every clear sighted heterosexual couple wants out of marriage these days.... a divorce.

And since gays lust after not tolerance but "approval," they are determined to inhabit every burnt-out fantasy of straight life. Hence, it will be a "traditional" divorce. Not a good new-fashioned no-fault divorce, but a brimming-with-blame, spite-spitted Prozac-popping divorce American style. Full of fights, slights, sullen silences, and a craving from the spouse for "my own space."

About half of the gay Americans getting in the long, long lines at divorce court will discover that the "craving from the spouse for 'my own space'" has a very special meaning. It usually means either your space, or a space you will pay for one way or another.

Because make no mistake about it. Whether it is a gay professionals' divorce, or a gay crackers' divorce, somebody's losing a beach house or a double-wide.

Children adopted by gay male couples will probably be treated in a kindly and caring manner during the divorce, but when it comes to the pets, get ready for the mother of all cat-fights over the puppy or the pussy.

Children born to lesbian couples will probably fare less well. Besides a lifelong predilection for comfortable shoes, the best they can hope for is for the courts to okay that they can, should they elect to do so, live with their sperm donor.

To be a classic American divorce a gay divorce has to come complete with that must-have divorce fashion accessory -- the gob-stoppingly expensive lawyer. (Make that two. Three if kids or pets are in the mix.) This is not really the lawyers' fault. The lawyers have to be expensive since it is the only way the lawyers (gay or straight) can continue to pay off their ex-spouse or spouses or farm animals.

Alas, not only is marriage due to be a downer for hundreds of thousands of gays in the same way it is a downer for millions of straights, the non-stop depression generator of divorce is going to weave its old black magic without remorse or regard to sexual orientation or good intentions. And the moralists are "afraid" that all gay marriage will do is to open the door to polygamy?

Dear moralists,
Be not downcast. Do not despair. You are simply failing to see the entertainment value for tens of millions of your fellow divorced heterosexual Americans. Instead, picture your deep and abiding pleasure when you get to unfold a comfy lawn chair, pop a cold one and kick back to watch a stream of four-cornered gay divorces carom through the "family justice system" like drag-queens on steroids trapped in God's Foosball court.

There may be a lot of fuming and fussing and fighting and hissy-fits down in the old Family courthouse, but let them roll on! Out on the lawn we'll just be kicking it, betting on which one of sixteen snarling coon dogs comes out of the pack with all four legs still on.

Do you doubt that these little contretemps will make for big box office on all 40 screens in the vast multiplex of the American mind?

As hinted above, I have three little words that make one big pitch: "Gay Divorce Court!"

"Gay Divorce Court!" would be a reality show with more legs than a queer centipede. "Gay Divorce Court!" is appointment television that could launch a million office pools, and probably some Vegas-sized lines for the inevitable Brad Pitt vs. Tom Cruise de-fornication fiasco.

It is time we all switched from boxers to Speedos in keen anticipation of the gay decade ahead. Gay marriage is a done deal. It's time our gay brothers and sisters stopped having the ACLU pay for their legal battles, and started to pay for some of their own.

And pay they will. I here prophesy that, verily, via "Gay Divorce Court!" they shall be cleaned, reamed, fucked, plucked and hosed through the nose.

Gay Americans say that without marriage they are, like the slaves of yesteryear, only half-a-person. Let us remove from the marriage of true minds all impediments to their assumption of whole-person-hood. How else can at least half of them can learn that special feeling that comes to a whole person when half one's net worth is lopped off by the courts like some robed Loreena Bobbit on crack? Yum!

Gentlemen, start your vows!

Me? I'm out front on the church lawn. I'm making the popcorn, getting out the lawn chair, and popping a cold one. Y'all come too.

Posted by Vanderleun at June 26, 2015 3:36 AM
Bookmark and Share

Comments:

HOME

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.

A bit bitter, are we?

Posted by: Chris at March 19, 2006 3:49 AM

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.

Posted by: markh at March 19, 2006 7:00 AM

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.

Posted by: Don McArthur at March 19, 2006 7:06 AM

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.......

Posted by: moondog at March 19, 2006 7:21 AM

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.

Posted by: ed in texas at March 19, 2006 8:54 AM

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.

Posted by: AskMom at March 19, 2006 9:46 AM

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.

Posted by: mark b at March 19, 2006 10:11 AM

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

Posted by: Gerard Van der Leun at March 19, 2006 10:58 AM

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.

Posted by: Cobb at March 19, 2006 11:35 AM

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.

Posted by: Steel Turman at March 19, 2006 11:53 AM

Okay, I'm Sorry .

Posted by: Gerard Van der Leun at March 19, 2006 12:04 PM

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

Posted by: Cappy at March 19, 2006 1:00 PM

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

Posted by: Alan Kellogg at March 19, 2006 1:49 PM

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.

Posted by: AskMom at March 19, 2006 3:07 PM

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)

Posted by: moondog at March 19, 2006 4:20 PM

"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!

Posted by: Erich Schwarz at March 20, 2006 12:11 AM

Brilliant.

Posted by: daoulas at March 20, 2006 8:32 AM

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.

Posted by: Johannes at March 20, 2006 7:20 PM

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.

Posted by: syn at March 21, 2006 5:15 AM

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.

Posted by: Michael at March 22, 2006 2:38 PM

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.

Posted by: TJ Jackson at March 24, 2006 8:30 PM

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.

Posted by: Alan Chamberlain at March 3, 2007 8:36 AM

That;s my view of the matter.

Posted by: Gerard Van der Leun at March 3, 2007 1:21 PM

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.

Posted by: Andy at June 17, 2008 2:49 PM

"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

Posted by: Kerry at June 17, 2008 3:27 PM

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.

Posted by: Webutante at June 17, 2008 5:51 PM

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!

Posted by: Jimmy J. at June 17, 2008 8:58 PM

My personal one-liner on this:

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

Posted by: Yanni Znaio at June 17, 2008 9:26 PM

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.

Posted by: PithyMe at June 17, 2008 9:36 PM

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

Posted by: Keith at June 17, 2008 10:16 PM

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

Posted by: Jeffersonranch at June 18, 2008 5:06 AM

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

Someone's gonna lose a trailer.

Posted by: dr kill at June 18, 2008 5:23 AM

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

Posted by: Cathy Wilson at June 18, 2008 10:28 AM

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

Posted by: phil g at June 19, 2008 11:55 AM

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.

Posted by: Moneyrunner at June 23, 2008 7:09 PM

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.

Posted by: Nahanni at November 12, 2008 12:37 AM

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?

Posted by: Daphne at November 12, 2008 6:44 AM

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?

Posted by: Fred at November 12, 2008 6:54 AM

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!

Posted by: BobK at November 12, 2008 7:29 AM

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.

Posted by: james wilson at November 12, 2008 7:53 AM

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.

Posted by: james wilson at November 12, 2008 8:17 AM

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....

Posted by: Rob De Witt at November 12, 2008 10:26 AM

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.

Posted by: Demosophist at November 12, 2008 10:34 AM

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.

Posted by: Christian at November 12, 2008 10:38 AM

Sow the wind. Reap the whirlwind.

Posted by: PithyMe at November 12, 2008 3:30 PM

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.

Posted by: E-man at November 12, 2008 7:15 PM

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

Posted by: CBDenver at November 15, 2008 9:14 PM

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.

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at November 25, 2008 9:50 PM

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

Posted by: Umar Saeed Shah at December 1, 2008 2:24 AM

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.

Posted by: Donald Sensing at August 12, 2010 3:04 PM

"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.

Posted by: The Count at August 12, 2010 3:50 PM

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.

Posted by: Marie at August 12, 2010 4:27 PM

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.

Posted by: Ralph at August 12, 2010 4:51 PM

Look deeper Marie.

Posted by: vanderleun at August 12, 2010 5:06 PM

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

Posted by: vanderleun at August 12, 2010 5:07 PM

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.

Posted by: Jewel at August 12, 2010 6:16 PM

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.

Posted by: pandelume at August 12, 2010 6:26 PM

I say let them marry in the new GZM.

Posted by: sTevo at August 12, 2010 6:50 PM

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

Posted by: Punditarian at August 12, 2010 7:09 PM

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

Posted by: james wilson at August 12, 2010 8:03 PM

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

Posted by: Cammie Novara at August 12, 2010 9:53 PM

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

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

Posted by: vanderleun at August 13, 2010 12:15 AM

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.

Posted by: Jewel at August 13, 2010 1:32 AM

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.

Posted by: raincityjazz at August 13, 2010 2:27 AM

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?


Posted by: Hannon at August 13, 2010 2:30 AM

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

Posted by: Punditarian at August 13, 2010 3:12 AM

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.

Posted by: Cilla Mitchell, Galveston Texas at August 13, 2010 4:41 AM

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.

Posted by: Red Carolina at August 13, 2010 8:00 AM

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?

Posted by: tehag at August 13, 2010 8:08 AM

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

Posted by: MrBill at August 13, 2010 8:23 AM

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.

Posted by: Daniel K Day at August 13, 2010 9:24 AM

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

Posted by: vanderleun at August 13, 2010 11:08 AM

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.

Posted by: Punditarian at August 13, 2010 11:44 AM


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

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at August 13, 2010 12:22 PM

You mean we haven't?

Posted by: Punditarian at August 13, 2010 12:26 PM

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

Posted by: Allen at August 13, 2010 1:18 PM

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.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 13, 2010 4:02 PM

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

I think the argument on this is over.

Posted by: Eric Blair at August 13, 2010 4:27 PM

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.

Posted by: Grizzly at August 14, 2010 12:20 AM

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.

Posted by: Kate Rafferty at August 14, 2010 9:00 AM

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.

Posted by: Red Carolina at August 17, 2010 11:24 AM

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.

Posted by: Jewel at June 25, 2011 8:03 PM

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

Posted by: Jewel at June 25, 2011 8:11 PM

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

JWM

Posted by: jwm at June 25, 2011 8:55 PM

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.

Posted by: B Lewis at June 25, 2011 9:16 PM

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.

Posted by: RedCarolina at June 25, 2011 10:43 PM

@ 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.

Posted by: Cilla Mitchell, Galveston Texas at June 26, 2011 11:15 AM

*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)?

Posted by: cond0010 at June 26, 2011 3:12 PM

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.

Posted by: daughter of patriots at June 27, 2011 7:34 AM

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/

Posted by: Jewel at June 27, 2011 12:01 PM

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!!".

Posted by: Mahtomedi at May 9, 2012 7:45 PM

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.

Posted by: ahem at May 9, 2012 8:57 PM

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.

Posted by: Casca at May 9, 2012 11:52 PM

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.

Posted by: mark smith at May 10, 2012 6:47 AM

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.

Posted by: Roger in Republic at May 10, 2012 8:04 AM

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.

Posted by: ahem at May 10, 2012 9:06 AM

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.

Posted by: WesFly at May 10, 2012 11:24 AM

Ann Barnhardt.biz

caution graphic language

Posted by: zipper at May 11, 2012 9:02 AM

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

Posted by: Brett_McS at May 11, 2012 4:02 PM

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.

Posted by: ShawnC at May 12, 2012 5:39 PM

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

Posted by: Frances at May 14, 2012 9:08 PM

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

Et tu Gerard?

Geo

Posted by: Geo at March 28, 2013 4:58 AM

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.

Posted by: Eric Blair at March 28, 2013 6:46 AM

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.

Posted by: BillH at March 28, 2013 7:42 AM

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.

Posted by: Ed Wallis at March 28, 2013 7:53 AM

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

Posted by: vanderleun at March 28, 2013 8:44 AM

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

Posted by: Suz at March 28, 2013 11:09 AM

"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!"

Posted by: Skorpion at March 28, 2013 11:46 AM

You are still right, Gerard.

Bravo, Bravo, Bravo!!!!!!

Posted by: Daphne at March 28, 2013 1:49 PM

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.

Posted by: BillH at March 28, 2013 3:20 PM

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.

Posted by: Hannon at March 28, 2013 5:11 PM

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.

Posted by: Jewel at March 28, 2013 7:54 PM

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.

Posted by: Grace at March 29, 2013 4:36 PM

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.'

Posted by: Howard Nelson at June 26, 2015 2:42 PM

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.

Posted by: Clinton at June 26, 2015 3:31 PM

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.

Posted by: newton at June 26, 2015 11:04 PM

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

Posted by: Dex Quire at June 27, 2015 12:58 AM

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.

Posted by: twolaneflash at June 27, 2015 3:19 AM

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."

Posted by: Nahanni at June 27, 2015 6:54 AM

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.

Posted by: Veritas at June 27, 2015 1:41 PM

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

Posted by: tomw at June 28, 2015 7:49 AM

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!

Posted by: SWOhio at June 28, 2015 2:04 PM

Brilliant.

Posted by: J at June 30, 2015 1:19 PM

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

Posted by: Buy Birkenstock Sandals at July 7, 2015 1:09 PM