I'd leave the Quakers and the UUs out. They're generally okay and on the right side of the equation.

But I do plan on circulating a petition to get a prop on the ballot that would anul all Mormon marriages in the state of California.

Wanna help?

Tony Perkins is an idiot theist. Nuff said.

Savage Love on CNN -- that's great. God bless him. Goddess bless him. May a hundred naked men jump out of a cake and bless him.

He's a powerful idiot, Thomas. Make no mistake, this is one dangerous guy.

I know which side of this argument I am on and I have a pretty good idea which side of it the angels are on, but I can't bear to listen to the two sides talk over each other trying to make their points.

I didn't plan it this way, but I lasted exactly halfway through the 8:48 of this clip, finally shutting it off at 4:24. Leigh, thanks for pointing out Tony Perkins' role in this. I was relieved to find it wasn't the actor from Psycho.

I want to protest in front of Tony Perkins' house.

Thanks for this post, Leigh.

I am glad Dan is going up against this dickwad--he is better at contesting him than many other progressive spokespersons against the right. However, I, too, am sick of the shouting matches and talk-overs. I think electric shock should be applied to anyone who interrupts someone when they are speaking.

As a devoted UU, I just want to point out that our churches have been marrying gay couples for many years. We have been fighting the State's refusal to recognize these weddings as legitimate for a very, very long time.

Vile is the right word. This guy has been spouting hatred for many many years. Keep him off the airways. You don't see guys in white robes as guests on Larry King. Rated.

What is the deal with Mormon men? They look so...alike. I'm not kidding, Perkins is a dead ringer for Kevin Rollins, former CEO of Dell. And both bear more than a passing resemblance to Romney, hair color excepted.

I love Dan Savage. I really do.

Look at that bastard Perkins - "hey, we're not the only bigots, i blacks are bigots too!"

So Tony is saying that gays are disrupting church services with their demonstrations, and so passing Prop 8 was what, a pre-emptive strike against gays who spray paint graffiti on churches?

What the hell is this idea, that gay marriage redefines marriage? How can Perkins be so stupidly blind? Allowing gays to marry expands the definition of marriage to include all tax paying citizens to equally avail themselves of the rights and privileges of marriage.

What the hell is Perkins talking about, that marriage is about children needing a mom and a dad? So should all single parents be stripped of their children, who can be put in homes with a mom and a dad? Or maybe they can just be forced to remarry! Does that mean I should be denied marriage? I don't have children. I've been married once before and plan to again.

I don't know why I let bigotry upset me so much. Of course it makes no sense. That's why it's bigotry.

I only watched a small part of this interview last nite but I loved the point Savage made about how Prop 8 interferes with religious freedom since it makes it impossible for several churches that wish to do so to keep marrying gays. I hadn't heard that argument yet and it seems like a good one. The more churches (and the more mainstream the better) that support gay marriage, the closer we'll get to it being a guaranteed civil right.

AS Hitchens says, "Religion poisons everything." And religious apologists help it along.

Calling Tony Perkins vile is an insult to villains everywhere. I simply don't understand why literalists want to stone homosexuals but not adulterers as Leviticus commands. Then there's that problem of "let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

Actually I do understand why adulterers aren't considered an abomination; church pews and church coffers would be empty, and we'd soon have a national shortage of stones.

If gays want to be committed to the institution, I say let 'em.

I couldn't care less if they want to engage in sodomy with their same sex partners but their attempts to legalize these relations as a marriage on the par with opposite sex unions is beyond the pale.

Tony Perkins is a bigot; same with this brookridge crescent guy, who comment just before me. In a way, though, he's worse. His remarks are simply defacing your post. He hasn't posted anything of his own, and is content to simply be a bomb-thrower. I despise people who don't invest in this forum, but who simply show up to throw a stink bomb or two.

I have a very easy solution to your conundrum, brookridge whoever you are: Don't marry a man.

There. Done.

NEXT!

I saw a great, incongruous, perfectly Portland sight the other day: Big Ford Dualie, clearly a work truck with industrial equipment in the bed, with a bunch of Progressive stickers and signs, including on that read "Ban Republican Marriage." I gave him a thumbs-up. :)

Leigh, you circulate that petition, and I'll sign it. :D

Hate, unfortunately, has never been a hard sell but protesting ALL churches is not the answer.

Well, I'm in Canada, and was quite proud that we were one of the 1st of the Western Nations to allow gay marriage (although it seems ludicrous to have to 'allow' something that should never have been disallowed in the 1st place, it sounds like you are beholden to the government or that the government was doing you a favour...).

History Lesson: In Canada's case, it stemmed from our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the only Charter of Rights entrenched in the Canadian Constitution. This came into place relatively recently, 17 April 1982, when the late former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau brought our Constitution home from England and created the Charter to protect all sorts of minorities. So yeah, I like Savage's points that it is not about majority rule; it's about protecting the rights & freedoms of minorities. When some Provinces tried to ban gay marriage, there were protests to the Courts. In each case, the top court of those provinces (Ontario, British Columbia, for example) (excuse me, brain fart... top court in our country is the Supreme Court, and I can't remember top Court for each province) In these cases, our Charter worked perfectly, the way it should. The top courts told the Provincial governments they could not legally ban gay marraige, and they had so many days to correct their legislation. It went to the Supreme Court of Canada, which upheld the right of gay people to marry, under our Charter of Rights & Freedoms.

It seems to me that legislation that affects people's liberties in some way, should be applied nationally, at a federal level. It seems crazy to have a right in one State, and not have that right in the next State... It seems a piecemeal way to direct a country. A right should be a right across the board.

You know, I just don't 'get' how people of other religions are so worked up against gay marriage. No one is forcing THEIR churches to marry gay people, no one is stopping people of their faith from marrying. So, how does marriage between other people they don't even know and probably will never meet, affect the sanctity of THEIR marriage? There is enough work in just getting ANY kind of relationship to work... I say, spend your energy working on your own marriage or relationship, instead of wasting all your energy minding other people's business...

btw, what is UU? Several people have referred to that religion, and I am wondering if it might be United Church or Unitarian or....?

Real men believe marriage is a good thing. Should be an option whether you've been courting a hot little number in heels, or a big hairy lumberjack.

It's that dreadful righteousness that gets me.

I love Dan Savage. He wasn't nearly savage enough, but then what would be?

I'm just seeing this. It makes my blood boil on so many levels, not the least of which involves the format of two people talking over each other with ineffective facilitating. God that Tony Perkins is an asshole. What a snarky, self-righteous jerk. He never did address Dan's point about the role of the courts being to reign in the tyranny of the majority. How can people not understand this? Also, just dismissing out of hand the interracial case with "It's not relevant" without explanation--that kind of thing makes me crazy. It's a perfect analogy as far as I can see. UGGH, I could go on and on. Mostly I have to say, I blame Cooper Anderson for not forcing Perkins to address Dan's earnest points. Because he won on merit, hands down.

Another thing, and I know this is petty: I can't stand when people say "incidences" when they mean "incidents." Anderson should know better.

I really liked Dan's point about it being heterosexuals who have changed the definition of marriage in this country. Really, I had not thought of that but of course he's right. Truthfully, it's changed completely from what it used to be. And he's right that the "new" definition completely includes the concept of any two loving people.