Um... What?


that is funny ...

"I'm sorry about the persecution mate, but here, have a scotch or would you prefer a cosmo."
the only reason you haven't been to a Kylie concert is that you're American.
Dan you make me smile.
If by "exotically-coloured" he means the "brown" of bourbon, well, then, I'll have another.
So... three-for-three if you count the parentheticals, and why wouldn't you?
It's actually a great decision. The unfortunate para you pull out touches on a particular point: whether gays can be denied asylum on the grounds that they can avoid human rights violations by passing. Lord Rodger says we shouldn't expect that they try: if a gay person would face torture, jail or death for letting his freak flag fly, he should receive asylum, whether or not he could stay safe by remaining closeted. Lord Rodger (I'll never get sick of saying that name) gets that the human rights at stake are life, liberty and security of person, not appletinis -- but he also gets that we can't expect people to live a lie in order to enjoy life, liberty and security. This is a fairly settled point in American asylum law; I'm glad to see the UK caught up.

The press coverage of this decision sucks, and it isn't helped by his lame-ass joke--UK right-wingers are talking about this like gay men get an automatic visa with a government-paid chelsea flat. Asylum cases are always difficult, and always specific to the individual's story.
If you're a gay couple and want to be married with all benefits at a federal level, you should have standing to apply for asylum in Canada.
Nicely done, @6.
I second the praise for your comment, @6. I've read recently that the government there has a bureau to help Britons not be forced into arranged marriages. They've noted a rise in the number of gay men seeking help, men whose families came recently from countries with hidebound hetero-enforcing laws and custom.…

I guess I'm just glad they're doing it as well as they are, for--faults aside-- it seems they've put us to shame in terms of institutionalizing government protections.
this sounds like the judge is channeling city reporter Stefon from SNL:

"The hottest new nightclub in London is... Asylum; club promoter Gal-Queda thought of everything... one boobed pop star divas, day-glo infused martinis, ewoks with fangs, gaggles of fag-hags, albino hobos on uni-cycles"
Just do me a favor and say "Lord Rodger" out loud.
This missive reminded me of something I read from Overheard in New York:

The Way Vampires Hate Garlic

Handsome straight guy: I don't know. Gay boys really like me. I don't know how to repel them.
Girl: You can throw candy at them.
Handsome straight guy: Huh?
Girl: Gay boys hate fatty foods.

--St Mark's Place

I'm going to go get a drink just so I can do a spit-take.
Who cares about the commercial guy? Post more shirtless pics of Bocanegra, please!!
Right on @ 6; is it really so hard to see that the judge was defending a human right to be gay acting not just to sodomy?
And yet later in Slog, David Shmader will claim that a US congressman can't possibly be gay, because his music favorites aren't gay.
And yet later in Slog, David Shmader will claim that a US congressman can't possibly be gay, because his music favorites aren't gay.
Im not sure what that piece is from Dan but its Quote of Lord Rodgers is hideously out of context. Right before this Rodgers refers to this as a simplistic and stereotypical example from British society. He is trying to explain that gay people have a right to express themselves as much as straight people and it is not on for the UK to tell them to go home and pretend they are not gay.

Dont call the mans reasoning cracked without er, reading his reasoning.

I feel bad that my first comment is one having a go at you. I think you awwwwwwwwwwsome.