Awesome 
Dude, the post just above yours has me saying that it’s possible he’s the famous bookstore murderer. If I’m willing to admit the possibility of his killing harry potter fans, why do you think I’m unwilling to admit the possibility that something in his tone cause her reaction?
There’s a huge difference between thinking something’s possible and thinking something’s probable. I see no evidence to make me think that it’s probable she was reacting to his tone or look.
Incorrect.
Again, incorrect. What he said was:
He wasn’t choosing to make a smartassed comment; he was clarifying. In fact, he was giving her an out, so that she could tell a white lie and thereby get her wife into the club.
Personally, if I’d seen a 40-year-old man coming to a club with a 20-year-old woman, claiming he was her legal guardian, and pointing to his wedding band, I’d think he was an idiot who believed only married men could be legal guardians. It would never occur to me that he’d be taking the creepalicious position that he was his wife’s legal guardian: the term “legal guardian” is inextricably tied to the term “parent” in my head (and, I believe, in the law).
Note that when Ashtar wasn’t sure what was being signified, he asked for a clarification. When she wasn’t sure, she went psycho. That’s why he’s in the clear and she’s not.
Daniel
What? You don’t think I can recognize sarcasm? You’re assuming that he’s relaying the events exactly as they occurred. I’m not. I’ve lived long enough to know that every person tells their stories from their point of view and there’s no reason to believe his tone and look are entirely neutral. Her reaction as described indicates to me that there must have been something to trigger her emotional response.
I think that if he hadn’t meant to be dismissive, he would have said something about being married doesn’t get a minor in the door; not asked if she was the young lady’s mother. He wasn’t giving her an opening, he was feigning that he didn’t know she meant they are married. The question itself indicated that he did not consider the wedding ring to indicate they were married. Like so many other gay folks, her parents may not even recognize it as a real marriage. She’s probably had the relationship disparaged enough times that she’s a bit sensistive about it. From her perspective, this was likely just another in a long line of little incidents when their relationship was put down or dismissed. That explanation makes sense and seem far more likely than she was just looking for a fight.
I do think your rhetorical question evince an inability to understand my thoughts; whether that’s your fault or mine, I can’t answer.
NO I AM NOT.
I am recognizing that, while he may not be reporting things exactly right, I’ve got no evidence that they happened in any specific other way. I mean, like I demonstrated above, I can come up with wild-ass speculation on what really happened just as easily as you can. The difference is that, once I’ve speculated, I don’t come to believe my speculation.
That’s not how I read it; indeed, you look to me to be the archetypal hostile reader, who interprets a person’s words in the most negative light imaginable.
Look: her parents may have organized a phalanx of trained chimpanzees to hurl feces at her while a Swedish strongman yodeled a tune disparaging of gay marriage. That doesn’t give her license to freak out at a bouncer who’s just doing his job.
I freely admit that she’s a “bit sensitive” about the issue. That, right there, would be the problem, wouldn’t it? Being a “bit sensitive” doesn’t mean you can be a “bit ch.”
Daniel
And I suspect that, no matter how tactfully Lord Ashtar pointed out that this couple’s marriage had no force of law, the person in queston was going to be bitchy. Because, as you seem to realize, she had a non-minor chip on her shoulder on the subject.
Regards,
Shodan
“You” is Homebrew in the above.
Regards,
Shodan
Had he pointed out that marriage, in general, doesn’t grant admission without questioning the validity of their particular marriage it might have diffused the situation. Instead, he feigned not understanding what she meant and inflammed the situation. He may not have even meant to, but it’s not hard to see how someone in her position is probably used to having people dismiss her relationship and reacting to the question the way she did.
Pretend that he said, “I’m sorry, but being married doesn’t qualify as being a legal guardian for the purposes of entering a bar in Virgina.”
She probably would have been pissed anyway; but it wouldn’t have been personal to L.A.. He could have been more tactful and possibly not been called a fucktard.
Experience is a harsh teacher.
So, he was an asshole for not instantly and correctly interpreting an ambiguous non-verbal response to a direct question, and for exisisting in the same world as genuine homophobes?
Yeah, that sounds rational.
To which she might have said, “What the fuck’s wrong with you? She’s my daughter!”
Again, he was asking in order to clarify.
I will go with you so far as to admit that, in hindsight, there may have been a more tactful way to ask the question that wouldn’t have gotten him yelled at no matter what (for example, he could have said, “I’m sorry, I don’t understand,” and that might have been better). However, his behavior was NOT disrespecting her marriage, and his clarification question was perfectly reasonable, and her response was not.
Given that her response was not reasonable, it’s a little bizarre to chastize him for provoking it; how can he predict what’s going to set off an unreasonable stranger?
Yeah–I’m learning something right now.
Daniel
Hmm. If we had some ham we’d have some ham and eggs, if we had some eggs. These two cases are very like each other, except for the parts where they’re not. Suppose they were two cousins from a state where cousin marriages aren’t allowed. Suppose they visited another state to get married. Suppose they returned home knowing darned well that their home state still didn’t recognise their marriage. Then we’re getting closer to the situation in the OP. And, yanno, I’d have sympathy for the older lesbian wanting to claim the right to make medical decisions for her younger partner and I probably wouldn’t mention “phucking chips on shoulders” the way I would over bullying your way into licensed premises. Ditto for the cousins. Sympathy’s more easily doled out when there’s a grievously ill person to take into account. Even I, hardhearted homophobic bigot though I may seem to paint myself, am perfectly able to tear up over the thought of a gay life-partner banished from the hospital bedside.
Meh. If you must insist on bearding the Church of Rome in its lair, I wash my hands of you, the same as I wash my hands of you if you insist on peddling booze in Saudi Arabia. I think Saudi laws on alcohol are idiotic, but only a fool flouts them on Saudi soil. That said, I would certainly hope the Vatican hospital authorities would treat foreigners with dignity and restraint.
Your questions, and my rather waffly answers to them, demonstrate that this is clearly not a black and white issue. Wherever the line’s to be drawn though, a lesbian’s claim that another woman is her wife in a state that she knows perfectly well does not recognise gay marriages (and you’re the one who’s assumed, on no evidence, that they had the marriage legitimately celebrated elsewhere, rather than find the first sympathetic soul who’d agree to conduct a ceremony legally or otherwise, or else just swap rings and decide they’d call each other wife and wife thereafter) does not stand up on any legal grounds whatever, and trying to browbeat LA with it was assholish. The attitude problem I assume from context, and I may be wrong.
God you’re such a drama queen. Neither I nor Otto said he was an asshole. We’ve only pointed out how his question could easily be taken as a dismissal of the significance of their wedding rings. In offering a plausible, alternate view of the proceedings, we (or at least I) hope to perhaps make Lord Ashtar a little more understanding of how he affected the woman in the OP. Maybe in the future, if faced with a similar situation, he’ll be prepared with a more tactful response, which I would think a good idea for a bouncer/doorman.
At least my hypotheticals are plausible. If she had meant the girl was her daughter she would have said so, not pointed at the ring. There is no reason for someone to point to a ring to indicate a parental relationship. Nobody - not you, not the OP, not even a six-year-old kid - thinks pointing to a ring would indicate a parent/child relationship. Pointing to a ring indicates a spousal relationship. By the same token pointing to a ringless finger is meant to indicate availability and non-martial status.
I’ll grant that her reaction was overblown. But it didn’t come from nowhere.
How cam you totally ignore the fact that the woman said she was her legal guardian…??? I’m sorry but to a normal person that means parent, stepparent or foster parent…some variant of PARENT. This is a classic mixed message.
Right, and if she had meant the woman was her wife she would have said so, not said she was her legal guardian. Nobody–not you, not Ashtar, not the psycho–equates legal guardian with wife.
Pretty fun, ain’t it, making these sweeping generalizations?
Daniel
I’m a drama queen? ME? HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A DRAMA QUEEN!
<shrug> It was a paraphrase. Otto said it was “a shitty thing to do,” and you’re agreeing with Otto. That’s not as strong as “asshole,” but it still places the blame unfairly on Ashtar’s shoulders. He didn’t do anything wrong. The woman completely over-reacted to an innocent and pertinent question.
I disagree. I have no doubt that the woman has had a history of taking shit for being a lesbian. That sucks, I have sympathy for her because of that, and it’d be great if we all lived in a society where that didn’t happen. But Lord Ashtar didn’t do any of that to her, and lashing out at him, because other people have been mean to her, is inexcusable. He asked a perfectly innocent, entirely reasonable question, and was verbally assaulted. I don’t care how oppressed your minority is, that’s not an acceptable action. Being gay isn’t an excuse to act like an asshole. If this woman can’t handle an honest question without automatically assuming the asker is a homophobe, than she needs therapy. She doesn’t need anyone defending her actions, because they are indefensible.
Since Lord Ashtar was asking them if they had a parental relationship, pointing to her ring is an effectively meaningless gesture, and pretty much demands a more specific follow-up. And you’re being overly broad in your “nobodies” there, as demonstrated by more than one poster in this thread. Such as this one:
Sure, there’s a reason for it. A reason is not the same as an excuse. If I get mugged by a black guy and turn into a racist as a result, the mugging does not excuse me being a racist, and no one is required to overlook my racism because something bad once happened to me.
Dudes, can I interest you in the vast and overwhelmingly mellow possibilities afforded by not giving a fuck? Brother Otto has the carefree vibe down, I suggest you follow suit; especially effective if one repeatedly avows one’s non-caring credentials over the course of several posts. Plus, watching the mice totally rules. They’re cute and speedy!
While we’re completely speculating about whether Lord Ashtar lied to us, incidentally, have we considered the possibility that he’s a giant libertarian squid in disguise? These things need to be taken into account. I can totally see how a lesbian sugar daddy would be perturbed by enormous land-dwelling cephalopods bearing tricky questions.
“SPECIALIST SUBJECT, SQUISHY HUMAN!”
“Um, marital relations in suburban Virginia?”
“WRONG, THE SUBJECT IS PARROTS AND THE CONSEQUENT CUTTLEFISH HOLOCAUST! FEEL THE POWER OF MY ENORMOUS BEAK!”
“Aaaaargh!”
You just don’t understand, Miller! How could you? This fine woman has to live every day of her life under the constant persecution of people like YOU who don’t respect the sanctity of her marriage! I’ll bet that the only reason she was even going to the bar that night was because her parents had just called her that day to remind her that they don’t approve! And then that lying brute Lord Ashtar actually had the nerve to show her such crass breeder-like insensitivity!
That noble woman’s pain is what drove her to call a bouncer a homophobic fucktard. Strength and courage to you, my sapphic comrade!
Okay… this is a joke, right? Did you seriously just call him a “Brute” and a “Breeder”. And say
This fine woman? Hahahahaha. constant persecution? That’s some funny shit. Stop it,stop it.
I love the smell of whoosh in the morning
For what it’s worth, I have gotten a few ideas in this thread of how to handle this sort of situation better in the future.
Well, from the story it is hard to tell whether the marriage had been consumated anywhere it would be legal.