Newsstand: November 23, 2009
The Making of a Medley
The Daily Photoist: November 23, 2009
Urban Planner: November 23, 2009
No, prominent city councillor Kyle Rae is not in California, getting gay (re)married, but if you read the Huffington Post—the biggest player in the field of left-leaning American news aggregators—you might be forgiven for thinking as much.
Today, the Post inadvertently used an old Associated Press photo of Rae and partner Mark Reid being married here in Toronto in 2003 for the site's article about the dead heat in the polls between those for and against California's Proposition 8, probably the result of an editor plugging "gay marriage" into an AP search engine and not paying much attention to the caption accompanying the shot. (That's Rae on the right, obviously, and Reid on the left.)
If passed in November, Proposition 8 would strictly define marriage as being only between a man and woman, simultaneously helping assuage the fears of shitty parents, pissing off adorable cartoon characters, and reminding us why we're so glad to live in a country where we judge our politicians not by how gay they are but by how often they return our calls.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Florida has a similar plan in the works with Proposition 2, and VP-candidate Sarah Palin said she would endorse a similar amendment at the federal level if she has her way.
I always love shoving arguments back in people’s faces against gay marriage when I ask them if it was better for a child to be brought up in the care of a drunken wife beating father and a drug addict mother, instead of in the care of two gay university graduate professionals. It usually results in them giving me a nasty look and not saying anything else. They preach morals, but ignore the negative effects a broken home can have on a child.
University grads don't drink or take drugs?
News to me!
"she would endorse a similar amendment at the federal level"
When the Dems are in charge, the Reps love talking about State's rights. Put the Reps in charge and they start using federal statutes and courts as a club against social issues, like gay rights and gun bans.
Everyone thinks they know what should be banned.
It's worth noting that Proposition 8 would actually amend the state's constitution -- California's previous gay marriage ban having been rightly declared unconstitutional -- which raises a couple questions:
1) You mean you can amend your state constitution with a simple majority vote on a goddamn ballot measure? Why even have a constitution then?
2) Seriously, WTF?
3) Is that the gayest banner ad ever to appear on Torontoist or what?
Not only would it be an amendment to the constitution, but it would be the removal of a right that is currently enjoyed in California by same-sex couples—and never has a constitution been amended to remove the rights of anyone.
Marc, I can think of one time where a constitution was amended to remove people's rights: Prohibition. It was later repealed, but it did take a constitutional amendment in the US to do it (18th, I believe).
Anyway, marriage. Bah. I've said all along that the problem isn't the word marriage, the problem is government being involved. Rather than having the government solemnize marriages, leave that part to the churches. The government should be granting Civil Unions to everyone. That would equalize the field under the law and still allow religious institutions to decide whether to give a "marriage" ceremony.
Sadly, too many of my homosexual brethren are too myopic to see things that clearly.
I propose the proposition "get a brain". It comprises of grade two level understanding where all the kids are taught to be equal
I still don't get why someone in Maine, let's say, would care about who's getting married in California.
Also, someone solve this for me: The US wants to ban abortion and suggests that babies be put up for adoption instead. Many gay couples want to adopt babies but aren't allowed to because they're, well, gay.
Assuming abortion isn't going to be legalized overnight, wouldn't it make sense to allow the millions of eligible gay couples (common law is five years) to adopt the millions of children that won't have families?
Oy. What happened to live and let live?
No, we gays are only going to molest those babies and then recruit them to be homosexuals.
It's not nearly as ridiculous as the law was in Ontario for years. Gay singles could adopt, but couples couldn't. Very bizarre indeed.