Capitol Hill Blue Forums We shall overcome

The first one is TOO funny Jeffro...

Given the marriages of Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, Ted Haggard and Eliot Spitzer, one has to wonder which sanctity of marriage remains to be protected... and from whom.

I know Ardy, that one really cracked me up - the other side of the sign was basic No On 8 stuff and he kept turning, so I had to watch that guy to get the picture (not that it was big sacrifice to keep my eyes on him

The Sanctity Of Marriage is a complete and total disregard of reality. When challenged with figures on divorce rates, multiple marriages, unwed mothers, anything that resides in the real world, the opponents say nothing. They pretend they didn't hear the question. They probably have to in order to maintain their fantasy that there is a legitimate, moral reason for their objection rather than a simple hatred of, or superiority to gay people.

Now, follow this pretzel logic:

There was a letter to the editor of the SF Chronicle prior to the election from a woman named Muriel who said she had gone to lunch with her lesbian niece and her niece's current partner. A friend of Muriel's saw her and approached. Muriel was flummoxed as to how to introduce her niece's friend. Should she refer to her as a girlfriend? Partner? Significant other? What word should she use? This caused her so much anxiety, that she decided she was going to vote to support Prop 8, and eliminate the right for her niece to marry.

I found it refreshing to know that my equal right to marry hung on an awkward lunch introduction.

That is so incredibly stupid, Jeffro. Painfully stupid. It challenges my sense of egalitarianism to concede that such a person should enjoy the right to vote.

Pretzels are more astute. Indeed, it would have been simpler for Muriel's simple mind if her niece were allowed to marry, then she could have simply introduced her friend as her "spouse." Fiancee should suffice until the nuptials.

Alas, I was unable to attend the protest, but there was lots of coverage on all the news channels.

That must be a totally contrived story. The terms "my daughter's friend", "my daughter's girl-friend", and even "my daughter's roommate" have mostly non-sexual meanings when applied to a woman during an introduction.

There really is no need to include the specific intimate details about someone's private life in such a situation. Would anybody ever think of introducing "my son, the masturbator" at lunch, to explain why he didn't bring a date?

I had the same feeling when I read it - I wanted to link to the actual letter but can't find archived Letters on SFGate.com (it was in the Oct 25 issue). I boiled it down to the basics but Muriel seemed genuinely concerned. Like NW said, "spouse" would be easier than the tangle of options Muriel waded through. Hell, "friend" would work.

My mother might, I get my overt honesty from her

Absolutely! What other dumb choices has this lady made at the ballot box?

Oh I can think of a fe"W."

Another euphemism: the "low information" voter, which is nice-speak for "dumb as a rock."

All one would have to do is notice said "Sons" thick, THICK glasses to know that...

Mother: Son! Quit doing that - you'll go blind.
Son: Can I at least "do it" until I need glasses?