My local paper (the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which sadly is the only major daily paper in this large city) runs Maggie Gallagher’s column once or twice a week, and in my experience she’s consistently smug, self-righteous, bigoted and (it seems to me) willfully ignorant. So this particular column is no surprise.
gobear, I know it was a rhetorical question, but:
Because many, many more people vote who are likely to want no-fault divorces, quickie Vegas weddings, and to watch shite like “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire.”
It’s not so much the crumbling institution of marriage he’s concerned with as the potential crumbling institution of Ehrlich voters…
And that, writ large, is the state of the union on gay marriage. As long as politicians can make political hay by denouncing it, they will.
And because public attitudes about homosexuality have changed enough that, having been brave enough to bring the case to a court, the plantiff could win it.
Which is unbelievably cool. As far as we have to go with gay rights, it is obvious that this is one battle we are winning - perhaps slower than is ideal - and that scares the shit out of some people.
I found it even more amusing when Robert (I think?) Knight was spokesperson for Concerned Women for America. I mean, are they all behind transgender rights that much? And he’d make an uuuugly woman.
As for the article in the OP, Derbyshire and Gallagher have both written much much worse than that. Andrew Sullivan actually updates choice quotes from Derbyshire articles just for sheer giggles. They’re so off the wall that they’re practically doing the rumba on the ceiling.
That doesn’t mean my fists don’t itch as I read them.
Close. Maryland has a black population of around 25%, that, in virtually all elections, is solidly Democratic. This is, most likely, a way for Ehrlich to win a higher percentage of the black vote, as well as that of the conservative Dems of East Baltimore, Anne Arundel, and the Eastern Shore.
Eh. Scratch a politician, find a politician.
A friend told me of hearing James Ellroy interviewed after LA Confidential appeared on the silver screen. “Are you all right,” the interviewer asked, “with what they did to your novel?”
Ellroy looked baffled, and hesitantly pointed to his bookshelf. “They didn’t do anything to my novel,” he said. “My novel is right there, where it’s always been.”
I am reminded of this story whenever some yahoo complains about how gay marriage will hurt marriage everywhere.
Daniel
I didn’t find anything particularly mean-spirited about the article linked in the OP. In fact, I found it to be logical and well-argued, given the spate of recently published studies which concusively and finally prove that children raised without both a male and female parent are destined for lives of criminalit and unhappiness. And the other recently published studies which demonstrate that children who are raised by “normal” marriages always end up happy, well-adjusted, patriotic apple-pie-eaters. Oh yes, and those other recently published studies which, once and for all, expose the big lie that there are some gay couples who choose not to have children.
I mean, the article was missing the links to those studies, but surely they exist, right?
Jon Stewart pointed out the other night how several of the major sponsors of DOMA – including one of its coauthors – had been divorced, some of them more than once.
This isn’t about defending marriage; it’s about defending Standard American Christian Morals. What the religious right doesn’t get is that this is (by Constitutional pronouncement and fundamental founding principle) an improper pursuit of government. Unfortunately, I think the religious right is willing to destroy those principles to get what it wants.
It must be that if gay marriage is allowed, all of these fundies will divorces their spouses and rush into a same sex marriage, right? They must be scared of something.
Where I used to live, there was a heterosexual woman next door who was on her third husband, and a lesbian couple across the street who had been together for fifteen years. Now who was better at marriage again?
One Huey Freeman seems to agree with you, Raygun99.
You know, I just love the unintentional irony of this one.