My Photo

AatomBomb tumblr

Aatom's Atom


  • "Just brilliant." - Joe.My.God.
  • "Turns out he is as delightful and engaging in person as is his blog." - The Malcontent
  • "Damn, you got some good stuff on your blog!" - FishbowlNY
  • "It's genius." - Boozhy
  • "We would be very nice to you at a party!" - The Fagat Guide
  • "AatomBomb is going pro." - FHC
  • "Jesus, are you reading this from a teleprompter on the e! news set or something?" - House of Pretty
  • "...he is frightfully eloquent..." - The Conjecturer
  • "...awesome writing and reading. im jealous..." - ElectroPlankton
  • "He can write circles around most everybody in the blogosphere and his political examinations tend toward the brilliant" - Bill In Exile
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2004

October 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  


  • Bloggapedia - Find It!

« | Main | NoComment »

Monday, May 14, 2007


Michael S

Well spoken.

You're beautuful when you're mad.


I can't say I disagree with you, but I do take issue with your emotionality. Calm down tiger, cause you're only preaching to the choir. I am most confused about the intended audience. Are you hoping straight people read this? It's like writing a political commenary about racism in Ebonic.


if this was an issue that was agreed upon in lockstep by all gay people, you might have a point. I suggest you take a straw poll amongst your gay friends though, see how much agreement you find.

Joshua Foust

" is easier for us to sneak in the back door, so to speak..."

Truer words were never spoken.

But seriously, I'd be fine with civil unions... provided everyone had them. I think that would be the ultimately equitable solution, in which the government is fully divorced, so to speak, from religious marriage, and the legal concept is applied equally (churches can make their own decisions over whether or not to discriminate, as they can right now on other issues).

Incidentally, this is why I think some of the European countries have it right. And, obviously, why the current crop of second-class citizenship proposals have it exactly wrong.

Good stuff.


Yes, but in order to believe in this idea, Josh, you have to believe that it's likely, or even possible, for the US to go that route and remove the civil component from marriage altogether, creating a separate system of civil unions. With all of the monkey howling about watering down the institution already, do you really think a majority of Americans would go for the idea that the government can't marry anybody? It's far more likely, in my opinion, that we will be allowed into the civil institution before we dismantle the whole damn system and rebuild it.


I confess to having been on the wrong side of this issue for a long, long time. Basically, I was pissed that we gay folk had not come up with something better than marriage as an institution. I mean, we managed to create tea dance and fuck buddies (not to mention a fabulous list of sexual accessories) so it wasn't completely out of the question, right?

But times change. The most rational solution would have been for states to get out of the marriage business entirely, creating only civil unions for everybody, and letting the churches call things whatever they wanted. But that was never going to work. Even up here in Massachusetts the legislature wouldn't go near civil unions until the court said "marriage it will be." Then they were panting like puppies to offer up civil unions. Fortunately the court said, "Marriage means marriage. Go away now."


The Constitution of the United States is worth squat on both sides of the political crack. Neither side wants to read it, and one side wouldn't understand it if it could.

I'm with you on this one. I've had that same argument with some of my otherwise very intelligent and otherwise well-read, gay friends.

The comments to this entry are closed.