There’s just something about the concluding paragraphs:
that strike me as particularly… self-righteous, maybe? But the whole damn thing makes the author sound like a wandering horde of gay people trampled her petunias and soaped her windows.
Of course, I may be biased by the National Review Online link I stumbled on, whose writer seems to call gay people “the wrecking crew,” as if they were joyfully attacking marriage with crowbars and jackhammers, giggling with glee all the while.
Is it just me? Am I completely misreading both these people? God, I hope I am…
I can’t understand why people get so worked up about preventing gays from getting married. I don’t see anything compelling in this opinion piece other than “that’s the way we’ve always done it” and “won’t SOMEBODY think of the children?!”
Today must be a day for infuriating quotes.
Two quotes out of the Denver Post that made me make faces on the Lightrail and go ARRGH, too.
“… The problem is not the individuals with the traditional beliefs. The problem is caused by those who overturn society’s norms to validate their own lifestyle.” ~David Schultheis, Republican State Rep for Colorado.
and
“The time is now. If we don’t do something about this, then you cannot in 20 years- when you see the American public disintegrating and you see our enemies overtaking us because we have no moral will. You remember that you did nothing.” Sandy Rios- President of the Concerned Women for America.
I was livid when I got off the train. Still ticked now.
John Derbyshire is Ann Coulter with a penis. He is a hateful, hateful man and says nothing that anyone should pay attention to. You’re not misreading him–he is virulently homophobic.
What I love about this gem is how little sense that second bit (the part about “overturning society’s norm’s”) actually makes. Like the gay folks are out there in the hayfield with the Pitchfork of Societal Doom.
More like the Seeds of Trying to Live a Normal Life…
This woman is an idiot! She clearly has no idea of how government works, and no understanding of the SJC decision. One of the functions of the judiciary is to interpret laws and determine whether they fall within the guidelines of the Constitution. They didn’t order the legislature to pass a new law to their liking, they said, “You guys passed a law that violates the Constitution. Fix it. Either get rid of the law or change the Constitution, your choice.” The system is working exactly the way it’s supposed to.
Well, you’re probably not the only one who thinks it’s particularly mean. But on my meanness scale, I’d rate it pretty low.
The people who give me the shivers are the gloaters, the ones who laugh and nod with that sickening air of satisfaction at people dying of AIDS, who get that gleeful tone in their voice talking about human beings burning in Hell, the ones who would look at a gay parent crying after having his adopted child taken away and just shout, “yes!”
THAT’s what I call particularly mean, the kind of people that make me ashamed to belong to their species.
OTOH Neal Boortz, who I usually don’t like (he’s like a Rush Limbaugh lite) has a pretty good article about gay marriages/civil unions here (2nd article down). I disagree with him about the gay adoption issue, but the rest of it sums up my feelings fairly well, as opposed to the starwman-filled crapfest in the OP link.
Gets me to thinking - I’d like to rent billboards along the highway with a simple message: “Ask yourself: ‘will gay marriage damage MY marriage?’” Something like that - the answer is clearly no, counteracting the message from fundamentalists that marriage will be damaged by gay marriage.
Is that a true statement? I don’t know how long Massachusetts marriage law has existed in its current state, but I presume the legislature didn’t just pass the law, nor has the Mass. constitution changed recently. Mass. marriage law which does not provide for same-sex “marriage” has always existed in concert with the Mass. constitution. Why did it take hundreds of years for someone to “discover” this discrepancy?
BTW, it’s not their choice. The 180-day deadline doesn’t give them time to change the Constitution. That’s the point of the deadline. The legislature can enact same-sex “marriage” themselves, or just let the Court begin ordering clerks to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
(PS to the Derbyshire uninitiates: go to his website and browse his stuff. You will emerge either a fan of a brilliant opinion journalist, or a Derbophobe.)
As a heterosexual, I demand the exclusive right to have 8 divorces and a sham green-card arrangement and 24/7 access to marrying drunken floozies in Vegas!
Just a note, dearest Arcite: It’s not same-sex “marriage,” but just marriage, sans adjective, sans snarky quotation marks. The uniting of two people in a legal, and for some spiritual, union is marriage, and Arcite’s immature sarcasm cannot change that.
And the governor of our neighbors to the north (Maryland for us NoVa Dopers) has weighed in with his opinion:
Will someone explain to me how people who wish to bind themselves closer to each other with legal and financial entanglement are weakening marriage? And why has the guv not bothered to condemn no-fault divorce, quickie marriages performed in Vegas wedding chapels, and reality shows like “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire” if he’s so concerned about the crumbling of the institution of marriage?
Hey! You guys got it all wrong. It’s way past time to confront a group that represents an inordinately large amount of marriages ending in divorce.
Who might this insidious cabal be?
“Baptists have the highest divorce rate of any
Christian denomination, and are more likely to get a divorce than
atheists and agnostics, according to a national survey.”
