RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

03/06/2009

Video: Everybody's deb8ing it

by Jeremy Hooper

Mikey and Tony on Andy:

My CNN Debate Last Night [The Gist]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

I was hoping Tony Perkins would give a straight answer to if he wanted the 18,000 marriages annulled. I guess he's intelligent enough to know he'd look (even more) awful if he flatly said yes.

Posted by: Joe | Mar 6, 2009 5:02:49 PM

What is with the squares on Signorile's tie? I can't tell if it's a fashion mistake or a psychological trick. Is he saying that queers are squares and squares look better on ties than triangles? I have no clue.

Posted by: Wilberforce | Mar 6, 2009 11:30:25 PM

Even the crows on the anti-gay side aren't claiming a victory yet. I think that both sides heard things that sounded as if they do not bode well for their arguments. But, I am still not convinced that we have lost this battle. The plurality of questions related to "what has prop 8 really changed" (my paraphrase), combined with the "nomenclature" questions is giving me some hope. This very court previously ruled that nomenclature does matter and that it is substantial, and now they are questioning the value of nomenclature???

It may be too much to hope for, but (and I've heard others suggest this as well) this court might be on the verge of giving away the "marriage" word to the religious, and codifying the phrase "civil union" as the law of California. At best, that might only have a 30% to 40% chance of being true, and even that might just be the over-active imagination of a deluded (rum-soaked) mind. But with the absence of a draft opinion on a case where so much is at stake... maybe.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Mar 7, 2009 6:39:42 PM

Dick: As always, nice food for thought.

I'm of the mind that whatever will be, will be -- and Thursday's arguments probably didn't change all that much. And I find it a little annoying to heard so many pundits (on both sides) buying the meme that it looks worse for our side. I honestly didn't see it that way. I saw a bunch of poker faces who put everyone through the ringer, as they should do.

My one annoyance was Krueger. I was really interested in hearing Brown's thoughts fleshed out. I thought those arguments could have been extremely compelling, and possibly made an impact. Unfortunately, Krueger proved to be the day's weakest link.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 7, 2009 7:37:30 PM

I agree about Krueger, but that he was also "challenging" the revision vs. amendment argument as well, so that might have been more in our favor than not. But Stewart was brilliant. Herrera put his best face forward.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Mar 7, 2009 7:48:14 PM

Yes, both this year and last, Stewart rocked my socks.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 7, 2009 8:38:27 PM

Re: Dick Mills' comment above.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/03/05/9434

TRiG.

Posted by: Timothy (TRiG) | Mar 9, 2009 9:28:07 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails