To Have and to Hold Wrongly (barfer)

Washington Post ^ | 7/11/06 | Richard Cohen

[blitzgig]

This guy wouldn't know logic or reason if it bludgeoned him over the head.

[Darkwolf377]

its touchingly Victorian version of marriage.

Why would someone with that attitude even WANT marriage made available to gays, if it's so damned backward? Just live in sin, don't buy into the bourgeois Victorian cluelessness, you rebel, you!

[Personal Responsibility]

Someone said this before me, but I found it so funny that I think it bears repeating.


Let the gays marry. Why shouldn't they be just as miserable as the rest of us!

[ClearCase_guy]

the dissent of Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, who likened the ban on same-sex marriage to the one that once prohibited interracial marriage in 30 states

Sounds like an analogy only a moron would agree with. Oh! This piece is by Richard Cohen. I see.

[Unassuaged]

Maybe the 317 rights mentioned...

[RexBeach]

Richard Cohen sometimes reminds me of the old adage "if you are too opened minded, your brains might fall out."

I suppose Richard would endorse the idea of people marrying cattle and such.

[Darkwolf377]

In the first place, I don't see what these 317 rights are, but in the second place, if it's such a horrible institution, why would he want everyone to be bought off with these supposed "rights"? Would a straight person, for example, enter a "gay union" for these 317 "rights"?

[Rummyfan]

The majority decision, written by Judge Robert S. Smith, more or less said that marriage has traditionally been between opposite sexes

Yeah, geez, for only five thousand years or so, in every society on earth in that time. But what do all those primitives know? Let's turn our society upside-down to please a tiny minority of self-evident emotionally unstable perverts. (I can say 'perverts' because I don't work in the goverment!)

[Darkwolf377]

And frankly, can anything be trusted from a columnist who writes the following:

"t goes on to say something downright mysterious: "[T]he Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father." Those italics are my own insidious contribution because, really, there is nothing rational about such a belief. It is based solely and exclusively on staying in chambers or, when venturing out, going no farther than the ninth hole."

Saying there's nothing rational about beliving it is better for kids to grow up with a mother and father--all things being equal (we're obviously not talking about abusive parents, for example)-- makes me wonder about the sheer sanity of this columnist.

[linda_22003]

Robin Williams: "Why shouldn't they have the same opportunity to lose half their stuff as the rest of us?"

[cvq3842]

Interesting, though, how even he seems to agree that this is a legislative, not a judicial, function.

I saw this trash in my newspaper this morning. He clearly has no understanding at all of our Constitution or legal system. He just plops down some language from the Declaration of Independence, and his feeeeelings that this is "unfair." Happiness? What about if I want to go naked in the streets? How does that affect YOU? Better yet, I would be HAPPIER if I didn't have to pay taxes. Any support for that right?

Circular reasoning? He brushes away the idea that society has decided that, all other things being equal, a child is better off with its biological parents with only anecdotal evidence. Columbine? Phu-leze. He's anxious to paint all heterosexuals with that. I bet this guy's next column will be about how you can't tar all Muslims with the deeds of terrorists. Fair enough, but totally contradicting his example.

The idiotic canard about how this is like interracial marriage raises its ugly head. The issue is not "straight and gay" it's men and women - they are equal in the eyes of the law, but not identical. They're a matched set! Too bad "biology" is such a problem for him. No amount of legislation will make men and women identical. Not allowing men to "marry" men and women to "marry" women is no more a form of illegal discrimination than allowing separate bathrooms for men and women in government buildings is illegal segregation.

If society wants to allow same-sex, polygamous, or human-animal marriages so that people can "pursue happiness," let the legislature do it.

Man, this bullsh*t is really getting ridiculous!

[cvq3842]

Good one!

[Bigg Red]

Why would someone with that attitude even WANT marriage made available to gays, if it's so damned backward? Just live in sin, don't buy into the bourgeois Victorian cluelessness, you rebel, you!


***
To destroy marriage and the family and sexual taboos so that they can have free access to your children and/or your pets in their pansexual utopia.

[GoBucks2002]

My understanding of the Court's decision was that the Court was refusing to overturn a state law. Well, gee, Richard, try changing the state law. Democrats control the assembly, RINOs control the Senate, and there is a RINO gov in Albany. And, hey, it's an election year. If Mr. Cohen's view is the correct, it should have no trouble prevailing in the court of public opinion with the enlightened legislature carrying out the will of the liberal masses in New York.

Er, uh, maybe that's what he's afraid of.

[Personal Responsibility]

LOL! Exactly right!

[cvq3842]

They ridicule "religious based" arguments for traditional marriage, yet they pretend to be unable to fathom biology 101.

[Darkwolf377]

BLECH!

Thanks for putting those images in my head... :P

You've hit on the silliness of this guy's argument. I mean, when a columnist points to all the perfect people who've come out of non-traditional marriages, and then as the example of a heterosexual one points to the Columbine killers, you know you're dealing with someone with a skewed vision of reality.

I know plenty of people who were brought up in non-Father Knows Best households (like, uh, ME). I personally have no problem with gay marriage IF that's what the American people want, if that's how we decide we want marriage to be definied.

The writer can't seem to get that concept through his head--that marriage is what WE, all of us, decide it is. And he can't point to any evidence that I'm aware of that Americans want gay marriage. That's kind of the beginning and end of it, right there.

[Unassuaged]

Well, the article mentions that there are 316 right enjoyed by married couples. Gay people want these rights. Mostly about custody, visitation and probate issues.

Guess I will have to remind my wife how lucky she is :)

[Darkwolf377]

I'm always suspicious about these "rights" when judges and columnists mention them. I can speak from experience as someone who knows personally hospice workers and AIDS patients--the "visitation denied" thing is BS. I'm sure someone can say they've seen it happen, but when a guy I know who's attended 200+ deaths of people with AIDS in New York City tells me it's BS, then I have to think it's BS.

BTW--he's a gay democrat who I convinced to vote for Bush, and he hasn't regretted it. Go figure.

[Monterrosa-24]

"...No amount of legislation will make men and women identical. Not allowing men to "marry" men and women to "marry" women is no more a form of illegal discrimination than allowing separate bathrooms for men and women in government buildings is illegal segregation..."

You made a great relpy!

This Post columnist tosses us Elizabeth Taylor as his example of "traditional" marriage gone amock. But I would rather have Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton as my on-again/off-again parents than Rosie and Rosie's girl-pal.

There are "Victorian" traditional couples waiting to adopt healthy babies and the demand exceeds the supply. But this guy wants to strike down preferences for those couples and give perverts equal status in the waiting line. Supporting faggot adoption is child abuse by the very nature of it.

Fat Rosie's own child stated he wanted a father so I guess Rosie's money was just no substitute.