She's becoming an expert through trial and error.

If you can have Palin's daughter lecture on abstinence, why not?

OK, we get it, you hate Canadians who love sex.

Stop pushing your attitudes on people from other nations.

Um, exactly how does Ms. Etheridge "make a baby" with any woman? Woman+Woman= delicious fun, but never a baby. Pesky sperm! And gay men, wasting so much of it...

How about this for consistency: accept Melissa Etheridge regardless of her marriage count, and stop using that tack against the assholes who oppose her marriages. Surely there are better, less ad hominem arguments against Gingrich et al anyhow.

Considering that Melissa and Tammy have very, very different takes on why they are no longer together, I wouldn't give much credence to any advice she thinks she's qualified to pass along to the mis-wedded.

I think each lesbian or gay couple is the spokesmodel for gay marriage. everytime I say "I'm getting married in October" and start bemoaning wedding planning then out myself, I am doing a good thing for gay marriage..

we just have to show that marriage for us is just as hard-work, fucked up and complicated as it is for them. oh, and fun of course.

The bizarre thing, Dan, is that my sister (in Utah - yes I have multiple sisters and brothers) was recently getting asked for marriage advice, and she said she didn't think they should ask her, and most of my family said that she should tell them to ask you, Dan Savage, instead.

Bizarre, but true.

Well, how in the hell are straight people supposed to identify with someone happily partnered to one person for life? It's not like straight people have a lot of experience with that.

"And, no, I don't think I should be a spokesmodel for marriage—my column is way too freaky, my positions on monogamy, drugs, adultery, kink, etc., are too out there."

Screw that shit, Dan. Your positions on monogamy, drugs, adultery, kink, etc., are based in rationality and sound, empirical evidence. If only all of our politicians and spokespersons were so "out there."

Perhaps Melissa can be a spokesmodel for failed gay marriages.

"am I the only homo out there who's a little uncomfortable with Melissa Etheridge being spokesmodel for gay marriage?"

I'm sure you're not, Dan. But the fact is you have an awful lot opinions about an awful lot of things, and you are fond of making rules for the proper conduct for us gays based on those opinions.

Can we nominate Ricky Martin? Granted, he's not married, but that could change.

I don't think that being divorced means that one can't be an expert on marriage. But there is a valid critiques of divorced people that try to sell marriage as a life-long, one-man-one-woman sacrament.

No, you aren't the only homo who feels this way. My boyfriend made the same comment a few weeks ago. But I think using David Crosby's seed makes her pretty much unqualified for any judgment, so our household might not be the best with whom to agree. (we're just another happy gay couple who would be horrible representatives for the gay marriage cause)

This is unrelated, but two years ago at the Folsom Street Fair they sold t-shirts that said:

JAM OUT WITH YOUR CLAM OUT

and Melissa Etheridge does.

Although another spokesperson may be preferable, I think it's misleading to compare Melissa Etheridge to Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich believes he should have the right to marry and divorce whomever he chooses. Melissa Etheridge wants the same right.

The difference is that Newt Gingrich goes beyond his own marriages and divorces. He wants to dictate what other peoples' marriages should look like.

Melissa Etheridge may not be the best person to speak on behalf of people who want to be able to marry a person of their choosing, but she's not suggesting that any couple should be prevented from marrying.

I think if straight marriage advocates can get divorced and married multiple times then we can have gay marriage advocates that do the same.

I think people accept divorce much more readily, and isn't really an issue. Those that have an issue would probably vote to disallow straight divorce if they could.

I nominate Jane Lynch and Neil Patrick Harris as our gay marriage advocates.

I don't think anyone alive is an "expert" on marriage - gay or straight.

Marriage is hard work. No-one is qualified to be an "expert". Even my grandparents with 70 years under their belts aren't "experts", they'd tell you that it's work and you have to muddle through it. There is no gay or straight "expert" out there.

And, besides just because the marriage doesn't last until someone dies does not mean it wasn't a good marriage and it wasn't successful to some extent. Ms. Etheridge's four children sound like success to me and they are indeed something good.

I agree with Southern Gentleman. The huge difference here is that Melissa is not trying to stop another group from the right of marriage.

I think the reason we object to Newt and the others is their hypocrisy. They tell others how to live, but they themselves don't live up to the standard they hold others to. Also, passing laws or supporting the passage of laws that are supposed to defend marriage from the threats allegedly posed by gay people is a problem when, if there is any threat to marriage, it is divorce. And when you divorce frequently, it seems odd to claim to be a defender of marriage. None of this seems to apply to Melissa, however. While I do see the point of your being ill at ease over her prominence in the same-sex marriage movement, I don't think we should promote any same-sex marriage representative as being perfect in this area--it will only come back to bite on the ass when our perfect representative is caught cheating or divorcing.

@22 Really! Who needs it. To me it's like slavery.

Rachel Maddow should be free to marry and divorce attractive young lesbians at the same clip that Larry King marries and divorces attractive young straight women.

Have you seen Rachel Maddow's partner? She is most definitely not attracted to attractive young lesbians.

Melissa Etheridge is only a spokesperson for her same-sex marriage(s), not everyone's, just like Dan's only a spokesperson for his. That's a good thing because everyone's marriage (gay or straight) is not the same, and the fiction that every marriage is a 1950s TV marriage needs to finally die a well-deserved death.

I don't understand. Does divorce make you less worthy of the same rights as other people? We need to stand up for divorce here, as well as sex. Just because we want marriage rights for gays doesn't mean we all want everyone to have to marry one person for life when it's really an unreasonable request. How do we really know kids are better off in the Dick and Jane system anyway? People are too scared to advocate anything else (like not having them at all).

Enh, I think the difference is that she's not babbling hypocritically about the sanctity of traditional marriage. There's no real inconsistency.

The issue as I see it is PR - sadly, gays and lesbians ARE being held to a higher standard where marriage is concerned than straight people. That itself is an injustice, but a lawsuit brought by a long-term, monogamous couple seeking marriage rights is just more likely to be successful. It's certainly more likely to get public support. I guess sometimes gay rights activists have to make these kinds of calculations.

The goal is not to have the right to screw up like everybody else ?

I don't really care much about who is or isn't a good role model for anything (barf) but...

"Rachel Maddow should be free to marry and divorce attractive young lesbians at the same clip that Larry King marries and divorces attractive young straight women."

Where do I sign up to get on Maddow's list? Because I am so there.

Who says a spokesperson for marriage - gay or straight - should have only one monogamous marriage, or children by only one partner? It's only a problem if that person is hypocritical, saying one thing while doing another. Not getting it right the first or second time doesn't disqualify her as a gay spokesperson. In fact, straights may identify with her because she's emulating them.

It's been said, but I wanted to add the weight of another voice. We pick on multi-divorce kids-all-over-the-country right-wing conservative "marriage is between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, 'til death do them part" proponents because they're filthy hypocrites who want the rest of the nation to do what they say while they're busy doing the opposite. It's not at all because they're divorced-so-obviously-they-suck-at-marriage.

Melissa isn't promoting some over-the-top super-conservative standard which she herself is dismally failing to live up to, is she? She's saying that gay marriage isn't substantially different to straight marriage, and so there's no good reason to ban it.

By having two failed marriages and four kids to two different women, she's just doing her bit to prove that gay marriage isn't any different to straight marriage.

And Dan? I'd love to see you as a spokesperson, not for marriage, but for how do do marriage RIGHT. Anyone who's read your column has seen the marriages (current and future) you've saved. The failed-marriages-to-be you've prevented. The divorces-to-be you've forestalled, by getting spouses to ACTUALLY COMMUNICATE with each other. The barriers you've broken down.

You've done more for straight marriage than anyone else I can think of.

Allow me to hereby nominate Dan as Official Spokesman of Marriage--precisely because his column is so freaky. And because he's an example of a successful marriage.

I think 90% of the people who appear not to be freaky, and 99% of the people who are outspoken against things of a freaky nature, have their own freaky proclivities more or less well hidden in their own closets. Dan is a good spokesman precisely because he acknowledges the preponderance of freakiness out there and encourages people to be honest about it whenever possible. Even in the unlikely event that two completely "normal" people get married, they're not good spokespeople on marriage because most people aren't actually "normal". "Normal" is a myth forced on us by the bible-thumpers and other sundry fascists.

Tangentially--watching The Marriage Ref last night, I commented that nobody has any business judging others' marriages on that show unless s/he is currently in (or widowed/widowered from) a successful long-term marriage. Of course, since the talent pool is drawn from Hollywood, birthplace of the sham marriage, that eliminates 99.99% of the possible judges.