RECENT  POSTS:  » Read: Federal judge calls MS's marriage ban what it is: discriminatory » Yet another federal judge accurately notes crude discrimination within Arkansas' marriage ban » Prominent conservative outlet equates LGBT activists with Nazi paramilitary » New pledge: Conservative pastors choose to separate selves from civil marriage » Read: ADF creates fake 'victim' superbook; misapplies business matters to churches » P&G reaches out to pro-discrimination activist, learns it made right choice » In prep for Pope's 2015 visit, World Meeting of Families readies gay stigma, exclusion » Today in ambition: NOM cofounder vows to fight marriage equality for 100 years » Video: Mississippian who made soldier his lifestyle choice seeks freedom based on unchosen orientation » One of America's most anti-gay organizations rallies for the Duggars; because of course they would  

« 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