Friday, May 11, 2007

Morning Sweep

A venomous editorial in the New York Blade this week calls out one particular gay blog for being "disrespectful."

The Rochester Democrat & Chronicle features a point/counter-point about gay marriage. Maybe I'm biased, but I think it's pretty clear which argument is more rational and logical.

Whatever your views about Tony Blair, he was good to the gays.

Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick went to bat for gay marriage yesterday, asserting that a popular vote on the legality of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts would cause a "circus" and would prevent other substantive pieces of legislation from being considered.

A new study shows that men who engage frequently in unprotected oral sex are at a significantly greater risk of getting throat cancer. The reason: spreading the ubiquitous HPV (human papillomavirus)--the same virus that's been linked to cervical cancer in women.

Another justice on Connecticut's Supreme Court has removed himself from hearing the case on gay marriage in the Constitution State.

Dennis Kucinich isn't the only presidential candidate who supports gay marriage.

High drama over the battle for location for PRIDEFest 2007, including threats to cancel the entire event. We expect it'll probably end up playing out something like this.
Posted by Josh at 9:05 AM
Labels: ,

1 comment:

J.Friedman said...

As a gay man and father, I have never been so insulted by Michael Hennessy's article, Gay marriage: God grants the right to wed just to
a man and woman.
Are WE (GLBT) not here. Does he not see us. He argues that marriage is for one man and one woman and that they complete each other. Additionally, marriage is for the purpose of raising children. My “husband” and I complete each other even though we can not legally marry. My husband and I are both 38 years old and have been together for almost 22 years. I think by now we know that we complete each other. Anyone who knows us would agree. Maybe he does not see US.

But this is not my point. Mr. Hennessy assumes his audience/readers are not to smart. He argues that children are better off being raised by a man and a woman. Moreover, since marriage is for child rearing it therefore should be for men and women only. Wow, there is so much wrong with this argument. First, he compares the ill effects of broken homes to gay couples with children. I know my son does not come from a broken home. They have studies on gay parenting. Compare any study of children raised by gay parents and those raised by straight parents, there are no differences. Does he not read these studies? Why is he comparing apples to oranges? Does he not see US!

Second, and more obvious, we are here. I am the proud parent of a 3 year old boy. Even granting Mr. Hennessy his ridiculous first argument. My husband and I are raising a child. There are many same sex couples raising children. Does he expect me to marry some one else. (Wouldn't that create a broken home- my son has two parents on his birth certificate, my “husband” and I). Every study, without dispute will demonstrate that having a stable environment is one of the most important aspect in raising children. Does he not see me? Does he not see any of us? We are a family, whether he wants to see us or not. We exist. This is the point of marriage, for us we need recognition, WE NEED TO BE SEEN .

May 11, 2007 at 5:43 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)