Slog Comments


Comments (75) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
rob! 1
That video makes me tear up every time I watch it. Such dignity and poise.

Sometimes I watch it just to tear up. I had an aunt who I think might well have been lesbian. She never married and died of a progressive illness some years ago now. Edie Windsor reminds me of her so much.

I never told my aunt I'm gay. Though my family is very liberal, we also tend to be taciturn and don't "share" a lot. I think we missed another opportunity for connection, even if I'm wrong about her, and I regret that.
Posted by rob! on December 7, 2012 at 2:07 PM · Report this
What's wrong here is not just that they couldn't marry, but that people who might choose not to be married, for whatever reason, are also penalized.
Posted by flan on December 7, 2012 at 2:12 PM · Report this
Hernandez 3
@2 Marriage is a legally binding contract. If you want the rights and benefits, sign the contract. Aside from the social status associated with the institution, that's the point of this fight: securing the right to obtain the rights and benefits of marriage for any two consenting adults regardless of gender pairing.

The government is compelled to give equal opportunity and equal protection, but it is not, nor should it be, compelled to respect or treat equal every choice. I don't own a car unless my name's on the title, and I don't get the benefits of marriage unless I'm married.
Posted by Hernandez on December 7, 2012 at 2:24 PM · Report this
No. Marriage is a specific relationship between two people that carries rights & responsibilities for the couple. Individuals who choose not to enter into this contract are forgoing the benefits because they opted out and chose not bear the responsibilites.
Posted by QuakeRugger on December 7, 2012 at 2:25 PM · Report this
Yes, I realize what marriage is. That doesn't make it right.
Posted by flan on December 7, 2012 at 2:42 PM · Report this
@5 so are you arguing against the estate tax, period? That's a discussion for another post.

I had only heard in passing about this legal case. One thing about social change movements is that it gives everyday people a shot at greatness. Edie Windsor got her chance, and she took it. Here's hoping she keeps on prevailing.
Posted by Prettybetsy on December 7, 2012 at 2:47 PM · Report this
thelyamhound 7
I think there's something to the idea that the state oughtn't to recognize marriage at all, or bestow any special privileges upon it. I disagree with that reasoning, but at least it's rational, fair, and equitable.

It's also beside the point. There's no movement to eliminate civic marriage altogether, and it's not incumbent on those who don't see any utility in doing so to start that movement. Marriage is upon us; it is recognized in all 50 states. And until and unless anyone cares to take the time and energy, or spend the money, to change that, then the question at hand is whether that contract is to be available and recognized on an equal basis. Washington and Maryland residents decided last month that it should be so with regards to same-sex couples.

I say the same thing to the "singles' rights" crowd that I say to the "polygamists' rights" crowd (though I actually agree more with the latter than the former): Start your own movement, get your own bill sponsored in the legislature. Or get an initiative on the ballot, and I'll vote according to its merits. It's really not relevant to this discussion.
Posted by thelyamhound on December 7, 2012 at 2:48 PM · Report this
BTW, what's that broken link behind "love makes a hero"?
Posted by Prettybetsy on December 7, 2012 at 2:49 PM · Report this
thelyamhound 9
@7 was in response to @5.

I hadn't even thought that you might be arguing against the estate tax. That doesn't really make it any more relevant, though, so I'll let my response stand.
Posted by thelyamhound on December 7, 2012 at 2:52 PM · Report this
I Hate Screen Names 10
@2 If you want the benefits of marriage, get married. If you don't want to get married-- for whatever reason-- then you don't get the benefits of marriage. I would like the benefits of being a doctor, but I'm not willing to spend the time, money, and effort on medical school. So long as I retain the option to do so, I can't really complain about how "unfair" it is that I don't get doctor status without doing what it takes to become a doctor.
Posted by I Hate Screen Names on December 7, 2012 at 2:57 PM · Report this
@5 Child tax credits penalize people who choose not to be parents, the mortgage interest deduction penalizes people who choose not to be home owners, the tax benefits associated w/ a 401K penalize people who choose not to save for retirement, and progressive taxation penalizes people who choose to be filthy rich. Are those injustices as well?
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 7, 2012 at 2:58 PM · Report this
julia in dc 12
I notice that NOM lauds DOMA as having been passed by our duly elected representatives...but when a state legislature passes marriage equality, it's the legislature imposing its views on the state, not the will of the people.
Posted by julia in dc on December 7, 2012 at 3:01 PM · Report this
#10 ok i get it. you welcome the state into your private relationship, and think it's fair to penalize people who don't. i disagree with that. just because something is a certain way doesn't mean it's right.
Posted by flan on December 7, 2012 at 3:12 PM · Report this
@10 Maggie Gallagher would say that a husband is a man who edits his sexuality in a way that is pleasing to the women he is married to and that conferring the title of 'husband' on a man who doesn't do that makes no more sense than conferring the title of 'doctor' on somebody who lacks the requisite schooling.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 7, 2012 at 3:20 PM · Report this
@13 The federal income tax system makes state involvement in our private lives and intimate relationships inevitable. If you don't like it join the Tea Party and go live in an underground bunker in Montana.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 7, 2012 at 3:28 PM · Report this
@14: I bet you'd be much happier if you just accepted the penis in your pooper you clearly long for.
Posted by NateMan on December 7, 2012 at 3:43 PM · Report this
@16 The argument for marriage equality is that in 21st century America committed same-sex relationships play a role in society that is sufficiently similar to that of heterosexual marriages as to warrant the same legal status.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 7, 2012 at 3:48 PM · Report this
thelyamhound 20
@16 -
Marriage is a legally binding contract between a man and a woman.
Not anymore. You're gonna have to learn to live with that.
Posted by thelyamhound on December 7, 2012 at 3:50 PM · Report this
The oponents of same-sex marriage really make me sad. I just fail completely to understand their point of view, probably due to the fact that I am in no way religious myself. I think that this issue as well as women's rights and social justice are just proxy issues. The world is changing (as it does, should and always will), which can be a scary prospect, I get it, but trying to combat the fear by grasping onto "how things were" is very counter productive. I don't think that most opponents of SSM really oppose SSM per se, but the change that it represents. The opponents have a hard time expressing their concerns constructively and their fear manifests itself in, for example, opposition to SSM. The real tragedy, however, is that in doing so, the opponents are unnecessarily and unfairly complicating the lives of others, as demonstrated by the story of the couple in this post. The fight for equality and embracing change must go on. Thank you to all of the supporters.
Posted by Pate on December 7, 2012 at 3:50 PM · Report this
@13, marriage is not and never has been a private arrangement. It's a legal contract and has been for thousands of years. Civil unions are also legal contracts, except they offer less legal protection than a marriage. There is no form of actual marriage that is not a legal contract. If you don't want to enter into such a contract, don't get married.
Posted by sarah70 on December 7, 2012 at 4:02 PM · Report this
#17 That fact that the government is involved in our personal lives does not mean that it has do so in an unfair way. Why is that so hard to understand?
I can understand why government gives tax breaks for certain things that are considered for the good of society, environment, etc. I don't believe that if I got married I would be doing society any good, so why should I get benefits for it? Am I really hurting society by remaniing single? Unless you can explain to me how my being single (but partnered) is hurting you? Please, I'd love to hear.
Posted by flan on December 7, 2012 at 4:05 PM · Report this
@11: People disagree with a lot of those policies, so I wish you wouldn't drag them into this. For example, I'm not really okay with the mortgage deduction- our houses would be a lot smaller and more sustainable and less people would get into mortgages they shouldn't have if there weren't such an incentive to be a homeowner.

I do think there are probably some rights and privileges associated with marriage that are unfair to single people, but that question is separate from the question of equality.
Posted by alguna_rubia on December 7, 2012 at 4:10 PM · Report this
While I'm glad that SCOTUS will hear the challenge to DOMA, it's going to be really difficult listening to Nina Totenberg try to recap the arguments from the bigots' side of the argument. You would have to be a truly horrible person to argue that Edie Windsor and Thea Spyer's marriage is not valid. In fact, you'd have to be such a horrible person that you should probably just kill yourself than continue infecting this world with your putridness.
Posted by pablissima on December 7, 2012 at 4:14 PM · Report this
@23 Committed sexual relationships offer certain benefits to society. Being partnered makes people healthier and more regular in their habits. Committed couples are better able to raise children. The institution of marriage provides a legal mechanism by which committed long term relationships can be distinguished from more casual short-term sexual relationships.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 7, 2012 at 4:19 PM · Report this
I Hate Screen Names 27
@13: First, not getting the benefits of marriage =/= a penalty.

Second, the state gets something for its benefits: I am legally obligated to take care of my wife, and vice versa. We are the same economic entity for the most part: her creditors can go after me (and vice versa), she can enter into economic contracts on my behalf (and vice versa) and so on. Etc.

That's why marriage is a contract, not just between spouses, but between the spouses and the state. The state gives us something, and in return we give the state something. If you don't like the terms and don't want to sign on the dotted line, that's certainly your prerogative. But complaining about not getting the benefits of the contract that you refuse to sign is just plain whiny.
Posted by I Hate Screen Names on December 7, 2012 at 4:21 PM · Report this
@14 "so we are going to tax the 2% unless they are homosexual?"

No, we are going to tax the 2% equally, regardless of whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. Right now, estate laws serve to confer heavier taxes on homosexuals than heterosexuals, because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages.

But I guess making such a distinction is beyond your abilities.

Posted by Clayton on December 7, 2012 at 4:22 PM · Report this
#13 wow you are a real hero for getting married.

in fact, single people add much more to the economy than married people, so your argument is dumb. single people contribute A LOT more to the economy than married individuals, so if anything, there should be a benefit for remaining single.
Posted by flan on December 7, 2012 at 4:36 PM · Report this
@29, reliable source please for your assertion that single people add more to the economy.
Posted by sarah70 on December 7, 2012 at 4:45 PM · Report this
Eric Klinenberg from NYU: "Perhaps more important, singletons are fueling the economy. They spend more discretionary dollars than their married counterparts. Their average per capita annual expenditure was $34,471 in 2010, according to the federal Consumer Expenditure survey, compared with $28,017 for married individuals without kids and $23,179 per person in the highest-spending families with children."
Posted by flan on December 7, 2012 at 4:47 PM · Report this
@31 People don't just benefit the economy by spending and consuming, they also do so by saving and investing. In American we save to little for the long-term health of our economy. Single people living the high life might boost the economy in the short term but over the long run it is stable loving couples living behind white picket fences who form the bedrock of our society.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 7, 2012 at 5:03 PM · Report this
venomlash 33
@15: A man and a woman can be married without the man having to behave in a manner acceptable to the woman.
Posted by venomlash on December 7, 2012 at 5:31 PM · Report this
Pick1 34
@32 Actually saving and investing helps the economy at a much smaller rate. One of the reasons the Bush tax cuts were so ineffectual is because he gave it to people as a lump sum and instead of injecting it into the economy, most people put it in savings for a rainy day.
Posted by Pick1 on December 7, 2012 at 5:54 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 35
@ Flan, you're wrong. Unmarried couples aren't penalized; married ones are rewarded. And it's really a societal decision that's enforced by the state, not a state decision. We the people, and all that.

If you think that's unfair, that's fine, but you still have to make that case from the correct starting point. Beginning with a false premise will only lead to a false conclusion.
Posted by Matt from Denver on December 7, 2012 at 5:58 PM · Report this
@33 Your right. A man who didn't do whatever to please his wife might be considered a bad husband, but he wouldn't be considered a non-husband. I think that the man editing his sexuality in a way that is pleasing to the women is a component in many, though not all, successful heterosexual relationships, but it certainly isn't a definition of what it is to be a husband.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 7, 2012 at 6:15 PM · Report this
Why are we arguing with "flan"?? He's a homophobic bigot spinning this whole I'm-a-penalized-single crap because he doesn't have the cojones to be honest and say "I hate gay people because the Bible and whatever and so I don't think they should get married." His side is out of arguments, they got run out of town on Election Day, and so he's trying to stir the water with this singles-discrimination sophistry.

You're not gonna get anywhere with him. Let's review: Homosexuality is not a choice, any more than heterosexuality is a choice. Heterosexual marriages are recognized by society, endowing them with particular rights and responsibilities, and homosexual marriages should be accepted in the same form because anything less is capricious discrimination. And equal protection under the law and all that crap. This whole singles-are-discriminated thing is a distraction, a wild goose chase. Let the hypocritical bigot puff his chest desperately over in the corner while the rest of the chickens move along. This post illustrates why gays and lesbians and bisexuals deserve to be treated equally as heteros. Regardless of how politics, ego, and prejudice end up affecting the Supreme Court ruling, this is what it's all about, not singles and societal rewards and whether federal government should be in private lives and all that noise. Let's not lose focus, people.
Posted by floater on December 7, 2012 at 6:42 PM · Report this
People don't have to think that Thea and Edie are really married if they don't want to, just like they don't have to believe that divorced-and-on-the-second-spouse couples are really married. This is about the law. This is about where the government interacts with a longstanding social institution.

@2 Flan, I disagree. No, cohabitating couples should not be treated as if they were married. That would cheapen marriage. (That's also why "domestic partnerships," "civil unions" and other forms of marriage lite are a bigger threat to traditional marriage than allowing gays to marry is.) If people are free marry but prefer not to, then it is their responsibility to learn about the difference and accept the risks and costs, and their choice should be respected. If you don't want the state in your private relationships, fine, but then you don't get the state-mandated tax benefits or legal protections.

Look at it this way, you say that treating non-married couples (and I assume you meant long-term, cohabitating partners otherwise identical to married couples and please correct me if that's not what you meant) differently from married couples is unfair ...but how so? If I put a bunch of cupcakes on the table and say, "Okay, anyone who wants to can come and take one," but you choose not to take one, how is it unfair to you? You're the one who decided not to take one.
Posted by DRF on December 7, 2012 at 6:52 PM · Report this
@37 I'm arguing with Flan because it's fun and because engaging in intelligent arguments helps me figure out what I really think and why. And Flan hasn't said anything homophobic, at least not here.

This entire thread is a distraction--a welcome one. I visit this webpage for entertainment. The fact that it can also be enlightening, instructive and informative does not change this. So far, Flan has kept things civil, which is why I haven't ignored him or her the way I ignored that other jerk @16. If you don't want to talk about whether all cohabitating couples should count as married under the law, then you don't have to.
Posted by DRF on December 7, 2012 at 6:57 PM · Report this
@39 He doesn't seem sincere to me, that's all. He seemed to be trolling. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's just that the argument seemed so ludicrous to me, and so redolent of Big Government tyranny, that I just read it as a cloaked homophobe trying to muddy things up. But maybe my b.s. detector is set on "high".
Posted by floater on December 7, 2012 at 8:37 PM · Report this
kuzibah 41
Let's take flan's hypothetical from another angle. If the law treated co-habitants as equal to a married couple under the law, that means the court could be involved every time a couple breaks up and one moves out. Right now, if a married couple does it, it's called divorce, and the court may have to be involved to divide property, debt, and so forth. If an unmarried couple separates, they work it out on their own. Could you see if the court had to be involved every time a couple that moved in together split up?
Posted by kuzibah on December 7, 2012 at 9:45 PM · Report this
@41 That's unrealistic and burdensome, so the suggestion that would follow is that government - meaning society - should have no recognition or sanction of any union, marriage, partnership, or what have you. We could then speculate on the pros and cons of this, but a more valid point is that this will never happen. So given that marriage will be officially recognized by society (and partnerships recognized to a lesser extent, but that's it) the more important matter is how we go about this in a fair manner: Non-straight couples are just as legit as straight couples. And that's the point made by some of the comments.

Maybe flan is sincere, if really misguided.
Posted by floater on December 7, 2012 at 11:26 PM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 43
16, in the 50s and 60s. It was argued that "Marriage is a legally binding contract between a man and a woman of the same race. If you want the rights and benefits, sign the contract. Aside from the social status associated with the institution, that's the point of this fight: protecting the rights and benefits of marriage for any consenting man and woman of the same race.

The government is compelled to give equal opportunity and equal protection, but it is not, nor should it be, compelled to respect or treat equal every choice. Choose an interracial lifestyle if you want but don't whine when society doesn't reward your choice the same way it rewards Traditional Single Race Marriageā„¢. I don't own a car unless my name's on the title, and I don't get the benefits of marriage unless I'm married to a person of the same race."
Posted by Rob in Baltimore on December 8, 2012 at 5:27 AM · Report this
@46 What bad thing do you think will happen if marriage equality becomes the law of the land? Has it happened in Massachusetts? In Canada?
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 8, 2012 at 9:42 AM · Report this
venomlash 51
@50: Yes, bad things happen. That's just the way the world works. But if gay marriage made bad things happen, wouldn't states that have legalized it be going through EVEN MORE bad things?
Answer Ken's questions. What bad things are going to happen because of gay marriage? Are they already happening?
Posted by venomlash on December 8, 2012 at 10:07 AM · Report this
@52 Which bad things do you believe to be caused by marriage equality?
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 8, 2012 at 10:17 AM · Report this
@54 Our economy has been devastated by an out of control military-industrial complex financed with public debt and by insufficient regulation of the financial sector. However, under the wise leadership of President Obama we have begun to rebuild.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 8, 2012 at 10:35 AM · Report this
@54 Now why don't you like marriage equality?
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 8, 2012 at 10:36 AM · Report this
@57 How do you believe marriage equality contributes to that list of problems?
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 8, 2012 at 11:03 AM · Report this
I love it! Calling out our underfunded education system for doing a bad job, then complaining we spend too much money on government!

Hot tip: those teachers we underpay are government employees.

I also love that Ken was willing to explain his take on America, but the troll hides behind tedious rhetorical devices to avoid having to proffer anything which might be challenged.
Posted by Hanoumatoi on December 8, 2012 at 11:41 AM · Report this
@59 So basically, you want to stop gay couples from getting married so that you can make a corpse get up and walk like on that show on AMC?
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM · Report this
venomlash 64
@59: Where's your evidence that Traditional Heterosexual Marriage is better than any alternative? Where's your evidence that its decline has caused our country's problems? Or is empiricism another one of those liberal inventions?
But sure, let's keep deregulating industry and allowing the wealthy to run roughshod over the working classes. If we stop gays from getting married and teach women their place in the home, everything will work itself out!
Posted by venomlash on December 8, 2012 at 12:10 PM · Report this
Sometimes it seems that fate, kismet, karma, a higher power, whatever you want to call it, conspire to place a particular person in a particular place at a particular time. I think this time is the place for these two ladies. They are the quintessence of why marriage equality is so important. Anyone who would begrudge these two all the happiness in the world and marriage equality simply exposes themselves as a heartless, brainless amoral bigot.

There is simply no way to make a cogent argument against these two.
Posted by Global Traveler on December 8, 2012 at 12:18 PM · Report this
@63 I agree that the decline of the traditional family has contributed to many social problems. The thing I think your forgetting is that family structure was preserved through patriarchy. Before the 1960s the number of careers available to women was very limit. That made many women financially dependent on their husbands. After women gained a certain amount economic independence they became less inclined to put up with husbands who kept mistresses on the side or slapped their wives around. Naturally the divorce rate soared. To bring back the traditional family you would have to take away many of the rights women have gained in the last 50 years. I don't think making second class citizens out of 50% of the population is a goal that is achievable or desirable.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM · Report this
venomlash 69
@68: Spousal abuse is only a SYMPTOM of Traditional Heterosexual Marriage's inherent sexism.
Posted by venomlash on December 8, 2012 at 1:35 PM · Report this
@68 Traditional marriage gives husbands great power over their wives. Human nature being what it is some men will inevitably abuse that authority. Traditional marriage traps women in abusive marriages just as surely as single motherhood causes child poverty.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 8, 2012 at 1:51 PM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 76
44, Funny how you can't counter the argument I presented. You are the 21st century equivalent to the racial segregationists of the mid 20th century. They also preached doom and gloom, and the downfall of America if the races were allowed to mix. Funny thing is the fear tactics stopped working then too.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore on December 8, 2012 at 2:56 PM · Report this
@71 "assholes spoil whatever institution they are part of."

Actually the mark of a good social system is that it doesn't get spoiled even when assholes become part of it. The American system of constitutional government has survived quite a few bad presidents. This is because our founding fathers were wise enough not to invest to much authority in any single person or institution.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 8, 2012 at 3:08 PM · Report this
@81 Does marriage equality make gays and lesbians more inclined to abuse their partners?
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 8, 2012 at 3:20 PM · Report this
@83 I think it makes it easier for abusive husbands to get away with it. If society makes it difficult for a women to make it on her own then a battered wife is less likely to divorce her husband.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 8, 2012 at 3:53 PM · Report this
@73--from the excerpt you posted "The researchers speculate the increased use of healthcare might be the result of higher exposure to discrimination, violence and other stressful life events.

"The pervasive and historically rooted societal pathologizing of homosexuality may contribute to this propensity for treatment by construing homosexuality and issues associated with it as mental health problems," she added."

This suggests that homosexuality itself is less of a problem than anti-homosexual bigotry.

Thanks for the talking point.
Posted by Clayton on December 8, 2012 at 4:02 PM · Report this
venomlash 86
@71: That UCLA study indicated that gays were more likely to have been abused by a special other at some point in their life, but no more likely to have suffered abuse during the past year. The implication of this is that gays tend to end up being abused early in their adult lives. You know, often around the time they come out. But thanks for blaming stuff on gays that in all likelihood is actually done by homophobes.
@72: Anecdotal evidence. And the write-up is from the homophobic American Family Association.

Alleged, that UCLA-affiliated study doesn't say what you're saying it does. It shows that queers are victims, not that they're abusers.
Posted by venomlash on December 8, 2012 at 4:52 PM · Report this
@42 If the government did not recognize or sanction any union, then no one's spouse/partner would have power of attorney, enjoy rights of survivorship or inherit without taxes, automatically be admitted into a hospital room, or automatically be considered next of kin over, say, a sibling. Oh but then ever couple could go a lawyer four times and have the documents drawn up. But this would cost money. And it would itself involve the government.

That's what marriage really does. "If I'm in a coma in the hospital, please consider my romantic partner, not my mom/daughter/brother to be my next of kin. If I die, please consider all my property to be my romantic partner's property." Is anyone telling me that they've never had a live-in partner whom they did NOT want to enjoy the power of life and death? That's the real difference between married and not married, the "Yes, please let him/her be the one to decide whether to pull the plug" vs. "Actually, I'd rather have my mom/sister/son take the helm on that one (and all my stuff)."

@46 They don't need to be just as good. They only need to be just as legal. People are as free as they ever were to think that gays are not really married.
Posted by DRF on December 8, 2012 at 6:22 PM · Report this
venomlash 90
@88: It hurts when ignorant demagogues claim the support of science when the evidence is actually against them.
I've explained this to you plenty of times before. The UCLA-affiliated study (yes, singular; I defy you to show me another recent UCLA study presenting similar results) shows only that homosexual/bisexual men and homosexual/bisexual women should be treated as disparate groups when looking at IPV. Additionally, it presents supporting evidence that men are more violent than women (since queer men and women in the study tended to have been abused by men).
Why are you so dead-set on stopping gays from getting married, when you should be protecting people from us guys? Think of the children, man.
Posted by venomlash on December 8, 2012 at 7:17 PM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 91
79, Racism, and homophobia are wrong. Two cases in history where bigots wanted to stop others from marrying. They are completely related. There's nothing wrong with interracial or gay marriage.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore on December 9, 2012 at 5:44 AM · Report this
venomlash 94
@92: Dumbass, the study I linked and the policy brief you obliquely referenced at #77 use the same data set. CHIS 2007, bro.

I'm not trying to sweep anything under the rug. I'm actually looking at the data set with an open mind to see what it indicates, rather than trying to shoehorn it into fitting my prejudices. What do the CHIS 2007 data say? Well, queers of any sort are more likely to have been abused at some point. (Whether by same-sex or opposite-sex partners isn't known.) If you look only at rates of recent abuse, there's no disparity between straights and gays/bisexuals. If you look at gay and bi men and women in their individual categories rather than lumping them together, though, some patterns emerge. Gay men and bisexual women are significantly more likely than their straight counterparts to have suffered recent IPV; in both cases, men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators. As I said before, these data you keep blathering on about say very little about gays and a good deal about men.

And sure, men are more violent than women. Of course, the Constitution of the United States guarantees equal protection under the law to all citizens, so discriminating against men would be unconstitutional.

@93: Homophobia and homosexuality...only the former is contagious.
Posted by venomlash on December 9, 2012 at 8:37 AM · Report this
venomlash 96
@95: If gay caused abuse, wouldn't we see more abuse among lesbians? You keep trying to make it about gays when it's actually about men.
Posted by venomlash on December 9, 2012 at 10:24 AM · Report this
@96 Gays and lesbians very well might be more prone to domestic violence than heterosexuals, but I don't see what that has to do with marriage equality? If we had evidence that poor people or Roman Catholics or whoever were especially likely to engage in intimate partner violence would stop letting that group get married?
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 9, 2012 at 11:50 AM · Report this
venomlash 99
@97: Read carefully, bullet head. MORE abuse. Why don't we see MORE abuse among lesbians than straight women?
You said that gays are more likely to abuse than straights. Not true.
@98: Oh, it's not particularly pertinent to issues of marriage equality. It's just false and defamatory, and I prefer to attack Alleged's fallacious arguments, rather than conceding shit he makes up.
Posted by venomlash on December 9, 2012 at 12:07 PM · Report this
@100 The claim was that THM enables domestic violence. Do you think gay marriage would do that?
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 9, 2012 at 2:14 PM · Report this
@102 Is it possible that a gay person who is married to his or her same-sex partner enjoys a similarly reduced risk of being the victim of domestic violence?
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 9, 2012 at 2:50 PM · Report this
venomlash 104
@102: Saying that THM is the best choice because it's better than cohabitation is like saying that abstinence-only programs work because they're better than no sex ed at all. Less gender-polarized marriage, that treats people as spouses rather than "man and wife" (as opposed to, for straights, "husband and wife"), will foster less domestic abuse.
Also, what Ken said.
Posted by venomlash on December 9, 2012 at 3:30 PM · Report this
@106 BTW what is you mean by 'THM?' When I say 'THM' I'm referring to the institution of marriage as it existed prior to the social upheavals of the 1960s and '70s. It kind of sounds like your referring to the sort of heterosexual marriage we have today, rather than the old fashioned kind. If so why not drop the T and call it simply 'HM?'
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 9, 2012 at 4:51 PM · Report this
venomlash 108
@105: "Well, I can't refute what you said, so I'll just make a snide joke about your word choice. Wait, I can't think of anything! AAAAaaaaAAAAAAaaaaaaAAAAA."
Of course I didn't give you anything to work with. I don't believe I have so far, but you insist on trying to prove your inane points anyway.
@106: Got any evidence to back that up, sucker?
Posted by venomlash on December 9, 2012 at 5:16 PM · Report this
@109 You don't think same-sex couples can live by those values?
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 9, 2012 at 6:42 PM · Report this
venomlash 111
@109: "you respect and honor your spouse. abusers are not doing THM."
Whoops, you've got some No True Scotsman on your post. Lemme just clean it up.
So, Traditional Heterosexual Marriage has no room for domestic abuse, eh? Did you know that until 1850, no state in the Union had outlawed wife-beating? And if a married man, previously keeping his wife with honor and respect, has a bad day and beats her, does their Traditional Heterosexual Marriage suddenly evaporate? Is it somehow transmuted into some other kind of marriage?
Posted by venomlash on December 9, 2012 at 9:41 PM · Report this
dwightmoodyforgetsthings 112
@8- Kurt Cobain's widow making a very long sandwich. It's messy, she cries about half the time, wanders off screen for about five minutes during which time you hear muffled shouting, then she comes back, dumps most of a jar of mayonnaise on the bread and rubs it all over her breasts while shouting "THIS IS WHAT YOU REALLY WANTED, ISN'T IT?"
Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings on December 10, 2012 at 10:13 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.