RECENT  POSTS:  » Miami-Dade Circuit judge rules state marriage ban unconstitutional; stays ruling » Video: With marriage equality, Texas could put in a pool at the Alamo » CWA ably demonstrates ludicrousness of American Christian right's persecution complex » Video: CBS News hosts '50 Years Later, Civil Rights;' includes marriage equality, obviously » Audio: White House? Nah. But in race for most anti-gay House member, Bachmann a strong contender » Brian Brown is the victim, y'all. How many times does he have to tell you? » Congrats, gay activists—Bryan Fischer has found new group for his weekly 'Nazi' branding » Maggie Gallagher: Sexual orientation is 'more akin to religion' than to race » NOM is totally popular (*in Ethiopia) » What constitutes 'absolute pure evil' in the eyes of Liberty University dean?  

« 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