The pro-same-sex-marriage video by Garfunkle and Oates has already made the rounds at Huffington Post and Alternet and the like, but Ann Bartow of Feminist Law Professors introduces it using an irresistable pun.
Will Gay Marriage Lead To Sex With Ducks?
Pat Robertson thinks so.
And these two “chicks” are pretty stoked about the idea:
Note #1: The Robertson video takes you to MediaMatters.com which unfortunately presents an annoying “want to register” popup.
Note #2: If you squint your eyes, ignore the lyrics, ignore the background scenes in the video, and just concentrated on how they criticize Pat Robertson and don’t smile you’ll realize that Garfunkle and Oates, like all their radical lesbian separatist female lesbian extremist radical radical socialist feminist ilk, have no sense of humor and probably don’t even pluck their legs.
Note #3: Comforting thought for right-wing straw-clutchers. “Garfunkle and Oates” are actually named Riki Lindhome and Kate Micucci. Which raises an important Pat-Robertson-comforting, institutional-women-erasing point. When gay marriage happens to lesbians they both have to give up their maiden names, right?
Note #4: And of course point #3 explains why homophobes seem to be so much less tolerant of gay men than gay women. Because when gay men get married they’re both men so there’s no way to resolve who’s last name to use which, like time travel anywhere except the Star Trek mulitverse, would cause irreconcilable paradoxes in the time-space continuum. Which is the real reason misunderstood advanced particle physicists like Pat Robertson differentially oppose gay marriage over lesbian marriage and not, despite that one unfortunate video clip where he’d obviously been into the cooking sherry and a stray mike was left on, because “girl-girl scenes in wedding dresses are HAWT.”
Tyler Cowen of Marginal Revolution has an interesting hypothesis about who among married or marriage-inclined heterosexuals does and does not support gay marriage.
The interesting question is why there is so much opposition to legal gay marriage (which I favor). You can cite various evil opponents and their evil motives, but there are many good people who aren’t all that enthusiastic about the idea.
...
I have a simple hypothesis about the cross-sectional econometrics. If you take the heterosexual couples who engage in the practice which is sometimes “associated” with male gay marriage, I predict those couples will favor legal gay marriage to an astonishingly high degree. Their marriage is already “affiliated” with that practice, and so the notion of legally married gay men (and the practices which go along with that) does not constitute an extra and unwanted affiliation for their marriage ideal.
In a way it doesn’t matter exactly which “practice which is sometimes ‘associated’ with male gay marriage” he means. Although since he’s being so indirect I assume it’s something like fellatio or maybe ass play instead of more obviously common-to-both practices such as setting up wedding-gift registries at Target or working in the yard on weekends.
But if it doesn’t matter what practice he means it remains a good point. Even if they were generally tolerant and of good faith, couples that believed sex should be strictly limited to PIV intercourse when and only when reproduction is intended might also be anywhere from baffled (“but why would they want to have sex if they can’t reproduce”) to outraged. And meanwhile even conservative hetero couples who aren’t adherents of the other Victorian fetish (missionary/PIV-only/reproduction-only/lights-out/female-orgasm-denial) aren’t baffled by the appeal and so are more sanguine about the prospect of other people wanting to do it too. Whatever the mysterious “it” turned out to be.
Just because it’s logical doesn’t mean its true. But as hypotheses about social attitudes go it’s testable with off the shelf data gathering and analysis methods.
—-
Note: it’s possible I’m just being oblivious and everyone else but me knows what “‘associated’ practice” Cowen’s talking about.
—-
Update: See also the eternally pragmatic Matt Yglesias “...the more people see gay equality in practice, the less frightening it looks.” Which supports from the other direction my hunch that those mysterious “associated practices” really will turn out to be things like shared interest in gift registries and yard work.
Via Miriam at Feministing
I would just as soon be tied in a burlap sack and tossed off a bridge as married, but I’m gonna be pissed off if this all comes to naught. And ecstatic if it doesn’t.
Vermont artist and blogger Alison Bechdel, graphic artist and blogger.
I haven’t mentioned the battles for and against universal marriage lately because still I feel kind of ambivalent about what the real whys and wherefores of linking it to the legal system might be.
But whatever the original purpose might have been, the subset of people allowed to exercise a legal right to marriage benefit from literally hundreds of thousands of public and private statutes, policies, provisions, and conventions.
And so while I’m personally rooting for the possibility that California will strike down all civil recognition of marriage in favor of, well, civil unions**, I’m really glad to see Iowa, D.C., and now Vermont doing the really, very, affirmatively right thing. More please.
[** I still think people who want to go through secular or non-secular wedding ceremonies should do so. And it’s even ok if some secular adherents want to limit who they spiritually sanction with marriage. I mean for heaven’s sake we let them sanction all sorts of other whacky, and even regressive stuff. I just don’t get, at all, what business it is of the law to let secular authorities have discriminatory veto power over couple’s individual and civil rights. —fl]
Tony Infanti of Feminist Law Professors (now with a new URL, ) says
In a blow to hypocrisy, a federal judge has rejected the attempt by Prop. 8 supporters to shield the names of those who donated in support of the measure from release to the public. I refer to this as a hypocritical position on the part of the Prop. 8 supporters because the law that makes the identities of those who contribute $100 or more to initiative campaigns a matter of public record was itself enacted through the initiative process by California voters in 1974. In defending Prop. 8 after its passage, supporters of the measure have argued that the courts should defer to the will of the people; however, it seems that the will of the people means little to them–and, in their view, should mean little to the courts–when the will of the people affects Prop. 8 supporters (rather than the LGBT community) adversely.
To be honest I am a little creeped out not by reporting requirements but by how close to invasion of privacy it gets. But it’s a compromise I’m willing to swallow in a political landscape so easily overrun by Astroturf.
Still, any lawyer compassless enough to make that specific argument — that initiative-passed law should be disregarded for the benefit of proponents of initiative-passed laws — probably ought to be disbarred.
Furthermore it’s hard to sympathize about the privacy rights of those who’s initiative was exclusively about interfering with other people’s to make private decisions.
Tony Infanti of Feminist Law Professors, quoting a Utah-based lesbian and gay rights group, points to a sliver of possible upside to the recent passage of California’s anti-marriage Proposition 8.
But leaders of the rights group here, Equality Utah, said statements made by Mormon leaders in defense of their actions in California  that the church was not antigay and had no problem with legal protections for gay men and lesbians already on the books in California  were going to be taken as an endorsement to expand legal rights that gay and lesbian couples have never remotely had in Utah, where the church is based.”
Read the rest of the article, and follow the included links, here.
Yeah, it’s always seemed a little funny that opposition to the marriage of “Adam and Steve” would come from anyone so recently persecuted for the marriage of “Adam and Eve and Genevieve.”
(Note: One can condemn the exploitative manifestations of multiple marriage of, say, the Warren Jeffs schism of the FLDS while tolerating at least the theory of non-exploitative marriages of more than one husband or wife.)

Blue Gal says
If I as a straight woman can be in a “relationship” and decide to get married or not to get married, why can’t everybody decide one way or the other, without government interference?
I say: Marriage isn’t for everybody but marriage is for everybody!
If you live in California, and are able to vote, and haven’t voted yet, please consider that voting “no” on Proposition 8 is voting yes for marriage for everyone.
Reposted from the University of Florida’s Gator Gay-Straight Alliance website.
GatorGSA continued its tradition of clever, irreverent, edit: and SARCASTIC flyers on Valentine’s Day 2004 with a dirty dozen reasons why homosexual marriage is “bad” and why gay people should not be allowed to get married. After 2 months, we have just reached 100,000 hits!If this is the first time you’ve heard of GatorGSA, take a couple minutes to check out the other cool stuff we’ve done like our Not-A-Cutout project and the “I Think I Might Be Straight…” brochure (PDF).
- Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
- Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
- Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
- Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears’s 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
- Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn’t changed at all: women are property, Blacks can’t marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
- Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
- Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That’s why we only have one religion in America.
- Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
- Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
- Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
- Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
- Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “separate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.
So this week in my integrated interpersonal communications theory / women’s studies / sex education program we spent a lot of time on sexual orientation, relationship patterns in groups with different orientations (surprisingly similar overall, by the way), and marriage and weddings. This is one of those areas where I’ve long known a lot of abstract and public-policy-level stuff. (I was surprised this morning how heated I felt hearing about the disappointingly common measures states and the Feds have taken to “protect” the institution of marriage from people who want to get married!)
Anyway, one of the snippets one of the professors mentioned the other day was that 1972 was a big watershed year in the American Psychiatric Association because that’s the year an association member gave an anonymous presentation declaring that he was both a homosexual and a psychiatrist and that he, and at least 100 other gay psychiatrists who were known to each other but closeted to the world, believed it was time for the APA to drop homosexuality from their list of mental disorders. He read his paper wearing a halloween mask and a voice-distorting microphone because APA rules forbade a person diagnosed with a mental illness from practicing psychiatry or psychology. The good news is that the paper was read to a packed audience and homosexuality was, in fact, dropped from the list soon after.
That’s the cool part. What shocked me, though, is that my professor added that many years later the doctor finally outed himself and it turned out that, as a lot of others closeted therapists evidently also did, he’d been living in a heterosexual marriage.
So that was yesterday. Today, in a completely different context, my professor mentioned that roughly 20% of gay men are in heterosexual relationships. Oh, part of the different context was that social scientists didn’t really bother to study gay family relationships until the mid-1980s when gay and lesbian couples started agitating to adopt children. And, she said, for whatever reason most of the studies have focused on gay men. The point being that when I asked if she knew the figures for gay women in heterosexual marriages she said she didn’t know.
And this is where it gets personal. I’ve mentioned elsewhere that my college sweetheart came out and, after separating from me, entered a 20-year relationship with another woman. I happen to think that if our sexual relationship was dysfunctional it was due far more to me than to her, but in general I’m still pretty sensitive to the fate of the spouses of more seriously closeted individuals because for the most part their sex lives have got to be kind of crap.
Now people being who we are, I’m positive that in many instances the spouse in question is well aware of his or her partner’s orientation, that he or she is supportive, and maybe even delighted with the freedom to leave sex (together) on the back burner. I’m equally confident, though, that many more live their lives out wondering what’s wrong with them.
Also, people being who we are, it’s really important to remember that not all closeted people act in bad faith when they choose to marry either. A lot of them, like quite a few of my friends including my former fiancee, took a while to figure it out. And a lot of them, when they do figure it out, do their best to clean things up with their partners.
But if you look at all the ways a closeted individual has of making his or her partner wrong for wanting to have sex for something other than, oh, say, reproduction. I am not, not, not saying that, say, religious admonitions against non-reproductive sex inside marriage (let alone outside of it) are the product of closeted individuals. But I certainly wonder how many closeted people have hid behind those admonitions, kept them polished and shiny, held them up high, and said the equivalent of “Yes dear, I know we could have sex any time if you [went on the pill / got a vasectomy / whatever] but that would be against church! We’ll just have to soldier on as we have… with the lights out, and our pajamas on, in the missionary position, once a year, if we’re willing to risk another pregnancy.”
And just to be clear, here, my point isn’t really that closeted homosexuality or lesbianism is wrong (duh!) but that this is just yet another reason why homophobia warps heterosexual marriage, and heterosexuality in general, far far more than open, honest same-sex marriage ever would.
By driving non-heterosexual men and women underground, by failing to provide visible role models and social scripts for individuals who aren’t sure, by creating a culture wherein even more partners feel obliged to submit to their partner’s sexual advances — under a regime that (again according to my professors) even in progressive states like mine still provide only limited protection of spouses from coercion verbal and/or physical, we’re just sweeping all kinds of stuff under the rug of heteronormative expectation and then turning around and buying all manner of self-help advice because the floors don’t work because they’re too lumpy.
Anyway, point being if people tell you they think gay marriage should stay illegal ask them how’s that’s been going for them anyway.