dagblog - Comments for "How Republicans Try To Save Face On Same Sex Marriage"

Excellent exegesis.

Michael Maiello — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:23:38 +0000

In reply to Brooks isn't speaking for the

Excellent exegesis.

Reminds me of Al Franken's

Donal — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:38:29 +0000

In reply to Brooks isn't speaking for the

Reminds me of Al Franken's skit on SNL, "Think to yourself, How does this affect David Brooks?"

Brooks isn't speaking for the

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 00:49:00 +0000

In reply to How Republicans Try To Save Face On Same Sex Marriage

Brooks isn't speaking for the right, here. Actually, I don't think Brooks ever speaks for the right, but in this case, he's speaking a completely different language: Brooks-ese.

I know that you're more of a Friedman man, so you're probably unfamiliar with the tongue. To appreciate Brooks-ese, you have to be able to twist ordinary social phenomena into grotesque forms that reinforce David Brooks' weird sociology-senior-thesis theory of human nature.

Ergo, gay marriage is a form of voluntary bondage, which is a good thing.

Truer words were never

tmccarthy0 — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 00:20:31 +0000

In reply to Yeah, I made that obvious

Truer words were never written... LOL, they are in for a big shock!!!

We have civil marriages in

Richard Day — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 20:13:16 +0000

In reply to How Republicans Try To Save Face On Same Sex Marriage

We have civil marriages in this country.

We have a Full, Faith & Credit Clause.

Okay so DOMA just disses Full, Faith & Credit.

If you were married in Boston, you sure the hell should be recognized as being married in Utah!

A priest might only preside over the marital proceedings as long as he has a license issued to him from some state to preside over marital proceedings. The same goes for Rabbis and ministers and whatever....

I never understood the issue.

And I still don't.

I do not care if they call 'it' civil partnerships or civil arrangements or ....

This is all so stupid to me.

I cannot get married in NYC or Minneapolis without some license.

And I can have Elvis marry me to my partner in Vegas!

I never understood this.

DOMA is just stupid. And it is unconstitutional because it allows one state to deny the Full, Faith & Credit of the laws of another state without any justification!

the end

Yeah, I made that obvious

Donal — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 16:59:33 +0000

In reply to The obvious response seems to

Yeah, I made that obvious response on my own blog, but as a married person I'd say that anyone who thinks marriage will only save them money is in for a shock.

Evidently, it'd be so much

Verified Atheist — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 16:49:12 +0000

In reply to There's a long tradition of

Evidently, it'd be so much worse if heterosexual men and women entered into same sex marriages for the same reasons.

All joking aside, it seems clear to me that allowing homosexual marriages will only reduce the instance of fraudulent marriages (and by "fraudulent", I mean used for the purposes of illegal financial gain, and not just for purposes of convincing one's parents, society, or even one's self that one is straight). Let's consider this new scenario: if you were a 20-something straight guy, would you really want to fake marry your friend for insurance, knowing that if you ever do find the love of your life, you're going to have to explain that? Similarly, if you're a 20-something gay guy, would you want to fake marry a female friend for insurance, knowing that if you ever do find the love of your life, you're going to have to explain that? Admittedly, the latter would take less explaining considering social norms, and both scenarios ignore bisexuals.

There's a long tradition of

Michael Maiello — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 16:40:58 +0000

In reply to The obvious response seems to

There's a long tradition of this... plenty of homosexual men and women have entered into opposite sex marriages for any number of reasons, psychological, social or economic.

The obvious response seems to

Verified Atheist — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 16:32:34 +0000

In reply to And here I thought gays were

The obvious response seems to be: what's to prevent two heterosexual (or homosexual) opposite-sex people from pulling off this same sham under laws that only allow heterosexual marriage?

Yes. They're apparently

Michael Maiello — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 16:15:40 +0000

In reply to And here I thought gays were

Yes. They're apparently remaking Bosom Buddies but about health insurance.