Mr. Wow Blog
Gay Marriage in New York!
12:00 am | June 30, 2011

Author: Mr. Wow | Category: Lifestyle Point of View | Comments: 81

Mr. wOw considers this week’s historic legislation — and (sort of) tosses rice

Are you going to write about the passage of gay marriage in New York?”  asked B. of me.

“Sure. As soon as I get the ring and mink, Mister!”

B. and me talk a lot like that. We have been together 35 years, and are as married as married can be, as far as I am concerned. B. has been the smart one. He has saved and financed well, made out an irrevocable will — there are really no relatives on his or my side to object — we are orphans. I am safe. And he will not have to pay for my cremation, at least. Mr. wOw has not financed well. Should I drop dead tomorrow, B. will inherit a fabulous estate of Liz and Marilyn memorabilia. (He could sell off those awfully cute, decades-old pics of me to porn sites, I guess.) I have been inordinately lucky — gay, straight, whatever — to have had such a long relationship. To have known what it is to be truly loved and understood. Especially as I cannot love, like, or understand myself.

We are not married. We live in New Jersey, where that state’s bloated, increasingly unpopular governor, Chris Christie is appalled by New York’s libertine ways. But even if we lived in Manhattan, where I was born, I don’t think we’d be rushing to City Hall.

My attitude toward gay marriage is as it has always been — I want tax-paying, law-abiding gay people to have the same right to marry as do heterosexual Death Row prisoners. Slit a throat and you can marry. Sleep with your own sex — nada. This makes Mr. wOw crazy! I would like see all fifty states simply get over it and pass the legislation. That’s my panacea of live and let live.

But that’s not going to happen anytime soon. There are what, six states out of fifty (New York being the latest) to pass such legislation? And I expect challenges, even in liberal New York.

As a gay man of 58, there are other issues that concern me. Basic civil rights! In over 30 states it is legal to deny housing and jobs to gay people (yes, still!) … better facilities for gay teens who are turned out by their families … a reawakening of the importance of safe sex (stop thinking of HIV as something “pills can take care of.” You are being disastrously naive.)

On a lighter, but still (to me important) level, shuddering over TV’s only gay network, Logo, pandering to the lowest common denominator. Although to that some might say we’ve come so far that we can humiliate ourselves as good as straight people. I’d like to see gay people stop wasting their time venting over every slighting remark (I’m not talking Tracy Morgan here — that was extreme) and concentrate on the genuine issues.

Marriage? I’d like the word not to mean so much — to straight and gay people. Read your history everybody, marriage was not a romantic, dewy thing — it was mere bartering. Religion was on the back burner. Cold cash and bloodlines was hot. Not to mention polygamy.

To those gay people to whom the word “marriage” means so much, I bless you and wish you happiness as you rush willy nilly to the altar. We have the right to love (as k.d lang sings so thrillingly) but I think we have an obligation to think beyond symbolic orange blossoms. Personally, I don’t feel the need to ape a heterosexual lifestyle to validate my rights as a gay human being. I demand all my civil rights. But trying to impress straight people that we are “just like them?” Eh.

And by the way, gay people split up, even after vowing eternal love. Ready for divorce court, you all?  That’s lots of fun. Ask your straight friends.

  • Mr. Wow

    P.S. to the above.

    As a 58 year old human being, I am also  concerned with Social Security, health care and the environment.

    I’d like the right to marry.  But it wouldn’t make me feel more complete in my relationship. 

    12:15 am | June 30, 2011
    • Testarosa

      Pardon the pun but, wow, I was unaware that you and B. have been together for 35 years. Congrats and thanks for (yet) another great article! Of course you are right, Mr. Wow: the real issue continues to be fundamental civil rights — country-wide — for the LGBT community. I do not wish to sound naive, blasé and/or smug but, as a Canadian, I find it hard to come to terms with the repression and prejudice that pervade your otherwise pretty great country. We have had same-sex marriage in Canada since 2005 but, more importantly, some of our meatier laws protecting against discrimination and guaranteeing equality date back to the 1990′s and even the 1980′s. My country is all the better for it (unless you happen to ask a member of the Westboro Baptist Church)!

      9:16 am | June 30, 2011
    • rick gould

      I totally agree, Mr. wOw… people, especially in politics, always focus on the more emotional, “moral” issues for which there is no black and white answer. Some use it as a smokescreen to divert the public’s attention from such less sexy issues as social security, health care, the environment, mortgage foreclosures and jobs!

      11:44 am | June 30, 2011
  • Chris Glass`

    How can this be a country of equal opportunity when marriage laws are not equal for all? It is past time that every state recognize marriage or civil unions as legal. People are people no matter what their orientation might be and ought to have equal rights under the law.

    6:08 am | June 30, 2011
  • Paul Smith

    Now if only some of that activism would now start an anti-war movement, or address a new spike in unprotected sex, while the bridal and legal industries celebrate their good fortunes. This must be the first time in modern history a people fought to be in bondage. Even heterosexuals mock the institution and flee in record numbers. 

    8:45 am | June 30, 2011
    • Richard Bassett

      Activism begins with people. Do you have a few extra hours?

      2:04 pm | June 30, 2011
  • Deirdre Cerasa

    For me the concept is simple; people love who they love. I want couples who want to be together to have the right to do that in a way that works for them. I want them to be able to legally make healthcare decisions for one another and to live a life together that makes them feel that their relationship is valid. Whatever they want to call it. I understand that many gay couples do not need or want to marry but that many do. I honestly believe it is long past time for all states to pass legislation to allow lesbian and gay couples to marry if they choose and if not, then hopefully they will protect themselves legally as many other unmarried but committed couples do.
    Obviously, Mr.WoW, you and B know far more than I do. I just think this injustice has gone on far too long and that many of us have been silent far too long thinking that it will work out. I don’t want to be silent any longer. I have spoken out for the past ten or so years and will continue to do so. I don’t care if another gay or lesbian couple ever marries; I just want them to have the rights of any other couple.

    9:33 am | June 30, 2011
    • Testarosa

      Very eloquently put, Deirdre. Quite heartfelt too.

      10:04 am | June 30, 2011
    • Mr. Wow

      Dear Diedre…

      Believe me, I don’t know more than anybody.  B. does perhaps.  I want the right to marry.  But I don’t want to be preached to (as I have been) by gay couples who insist the real and true validation of our love is marriage.  And we shouldn’t have cats.  We need to adopt poor babies from across the seas.

      I don’t believe in marriage in general.  I don’t see it working too well across the board.  But by all means, we should all have the right.

      10:16 am | June 30, 2011
      • Jon T

        I’m in complete agreement on that last part. My partner and I did get married in Canada a few years ago so the marriage was already legally recognized in NY. But I wouldn’t presume to tell anyone that their relationship isn’t valid unless they now rush to the altar. Getting married was right for US; it doesn’t make us more committed than the next couple.
        I’m especially mindful of that attitude since a few years ago before we decided to wed we were getting flak from a few loved ones for not having some kind of commitment ceremony in front of friends and family (not our thing, especially when we’re being badgered to do so). Having the right to get married doesn’t mean one must get married. Go with what makes you happiest, Mr. Wow.

        10:30 am | June 30, 2011
    • Richard Bassett

      Marriage is the missing ‘right’. Without it, gays (and straights) have to address their own rights as one people, worldwide. Not a very easy task.

      2:10 pm | June 30, 2011
  • phyllis Doyle Pepe

    Dear, dear Mr. Wow: How I love your fury! Such a bloody shame that this country that I love seems to be still in its teenage years, struggling with an identity still encumbered by that old time religion. We women, lately are feeling the sting, especially in Kansas, once the home of Dorothy and the rainbow connection, now stripped of any abortion clinic. I am waiting for the day when no one will care gender wise about who is having at it with whom, and when men in suits stop interfering with our uteruses and all things fetal. Until then you and B. be grateful for the love, and I’ll keep my spite warm.

    10:27 am | June 30, 2011
    • Testarosa

      What’s going on in Kansas is deplorable and your comment about “men in suits” is well-taken. As an inquisitive teenager in the late 1970′s, I began to explore — and read-up on — feminism. There were many quotable quotes to spring from that era but the one that stayed with me came from Flo Kennedy who stated quite simply: “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament”.

      10:45 am | June 30, 2011
      • Mr. Wow

        Dear Testerosa…
        Amen to to that, sister!  I love the way men talk about women having babies like it’s…a toothache that will eventually go away.  “Oh, just have the baby and put it up for adoption!”  Sure, it’s that simple, phyically and emotionally.  More appalling when women have the same attitude. I say leave everybody’s love life and reproductive organs alone.  If you believe such things are  a sin, then you believe we will “pay” for it.  Pray for our souls and get the hell off my porch.

        11:01 am | June 30, 2011
    • Richard Bassett

      ….waiting for the day……

      2:15 pm | June 30, 2011
  • Haunted Lady

    The New York law is a step in the right direction and I’m glad it happened. Personally, I have no use for marriage but I recognize that it’s very important to a lot of people. And I do mean people – of all colors, genders, sexual orientation or whatever – it’s all still people and all should have the same rights and responsibilities, be it marriage, child care, pension, or anything else. Now, about the deficit, the war ….

    While I envy you your long relationship, I’m also very happy for you. I hope it never ends.

    11:03 am | June 30, 2011
    • Mr. Wow

      Dear HauntedLady…

      Thank you, honey.  If the Mayan calendar iscorrect and the world ends next year, I’m glad me and B. will be going together.

      11:12 am | June 30, 2011
  • Michelle Cook

    Paraphrased from Dr. George Lakoff – written in 2004
    What’s in a word? Plenty, if that word is Marriage. Marriage is central to our culture. It confers hundreds of benefits, but that is only its material aspect. Marriage is an institution, the public expression of lifelong commitment based on love. It is the culmination of a period of seeking a mate, and for many, the realization of a major goal. Marriage is the beginning of family life. It is also understood in terms of deep and abiding metaphors: a journey through life together, a partnership, a union. Marriage confers a social status – a married couple with new social roles. For a great number of people, marriage legitimizes sex. Marriage, as an ideal, is defined as “the realization of love through a lifelong commitment.” Love is sacred in America. So is commitment. There is sanctity in marriage: it is the sanctity of love and commitment. In short, marriage is a big deal. However, none of the richness we have just discussed requires marriage to be heterosexual. Not its definition, not its sanctity, its rituals, its family life, its hopes and dreams. The locus of the idea that marriage is heterosexual is in a widespread cultural stereotype.
    To evoke this stereotype, language is important. The Radical Right uses gay marriage. Polls show that most Americans are overwhelmingly against anti-gay discrimination, but equally against “gay marriage”. One reason is that marriage evokes the idea of sex and most Americans do not favor gay sex. Another is that the stereotype of marriage is heterosexual. Gay for the Radical Right connotes a wild, deviant, sexually irresponsible lifestyle, which is why the Right prefers the term gay marriage to same-sex marriage. Legally defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, makes the term gay marriage an oxymoron, as meaningless as gay apple or gay telephone.
    The more the term same-sex marriage is used, the more normal the idea of same-sex marriage becomes, and the clearer it becomes that marriage is not defined to exclude that very possibility. Which is why some gay activists want to use the term same-sex marriage instead of gay marriage.
    The reason the Radical Right is opposed to same-sex marriage is because conservative politics are organized around the “Strict Father” model of family life. The Strict Father is the moral authority and master of the household, dominating the mother and children, imposing needed discipline. Marriage in the Strict Father family must be heterosexual – to be anything else challenges the basis of conservative values. What is at stake is more than the material benefits of marriage and the use of the word. Conservatives see the Strict Father family and the political values contained in that model as being under attack and they are right. Even civil unions are threatening because they create families that cannot be traditional Strict Father families. This is not just about same-sex couples. It is about which values (progressive or conservative) will dominate in our society.

    11:28 am | June 30, 2011
  • calgal

    As a teenager in the 50s, I dressed like Debbie Reynolds and watched Rat Pack movies where the men patted their women’s girdled butts to scoot them out of the room when they needed to discuss serious matters. I lived in the Deep South during the Civil Rights movement, aghast at the blatant hatred spit out at the “Colored” who dared stand up for their rights. Then, in Los Angeles in the 60s, personally felt the anger at women getting uppity about their own rights. The first time I knew I had a gay friend was when he came out by announcing he would march in LA’s first Gay Pride parade.

    I have lived through the struggles for liberation for Blacks, women, and gays, and cheered and cheered and cheered. I’m now cheering for immigrants. None of these battles is won. Progress is slow for all these groups, and there are many setbacks (like the one in Kansas). But America is a better place than it was in the 50s, and I have faith that it will continue to get better. I’ve seen progress with my own eyes. Thank you, Mr. Wow, for sharing your thoughts on this latest victory.

    11:39 am | June 30, 2011
    • rick gould

      You’ve seen a lot, CalGal! Great comment ;)

      11:49 am | June 30, 2011
  • Mr. Wow

    Dear Michelle..

    Great post!  Which values will dominate?  Well, everytime a conservative is elected president , liberals become hysterical and start invoking images of concentration camps for gays, women who want control of their bodies, angry black men and intellectuals.  It never happens.
    Whenever a liberal is elected president, conservatives becomes hysterical invoking images of concentration camps for church-goers, flag-wavers, middle-aged white guys and women who choose to have very large families.  It never happens.

    I think the country will always be split down the middle on certain issues.  Of course, in a generation or two, the complexion of the country is going to be rather cafe au lait, despite the efforts of the Duggars.  This will be  a good thing, tho very scary for those Strict Fathers, who are invariably quite pale.

    Gays have made remarkable–and incredibly swift!–strides in the 42 years since Stonewall.  Faster in fact than women or African Americans.  But we all still have  al ong way to go.

    11:52 am | June 30, 2011
  • Jamie
    J G

    Perfectly said. All of it.
    I’ll add that in my vision for marriage, (I’m stealing from a favorite psychiatrist I sort of know) the courts and government and states would not be involved in marriage what so ever. It would be none of their business who gets married. Yes this would open the door to all sorts of marriages, but for me, it would be worth it, just to keep the government out of our bedrooms.
    I feel that a marriage is between the people getting married and the person they need to marry them, and their loved ones.
    Again, the government does not belong in our bedrooms.
    Also, I abhor the word “tolerant” (I know you didn’t use that word, Mr. Wow, but so many people do)
    The correct word is acceptance.

    11:53 am | June 30, 2011
    • Testarosa

      Former Canadian Prime Minister (and noted bon vivant) Pierre Elliot Trudeau chalked up many quotable quotes during his political career (he was just that kind of leader). One of his more famous (or infamous, according to some) ones was: “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation”. When was it uttered? Way back in 1967, if you can believe it!

      12:16 pm | June 30, 2011
      • Jamie
        J G

        To quote my hero, Mr. Rogers;
        “Love isn’t a state of perfect caring. It is an active noun like struggle. To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.”
        — Fred Rogers (The World According to Mister Rogers)

        1:15 pm | June 30, 2011
        • Testarosa

          Aw gee, that’s got me almost teary-eyed. Leave it to (wonderful human being) Mr. Rogers to come up with such a simple but meaningful statement. But then again, his prime audience was comprised of young children: I guess they provided added impetus to keep it real and live by that rule, day-in, day-out. Thanks for that quote, JG! Reading it has made for a beautiful day in my “neighbourhood”.

          1:27 pm | June 30, 2011
          • Jamie
            J G

            Sadly, I was one of his prime audience too. I loved his cardigans.
            I’m such a dork. :)

            1:36 pm | June 30, 2011
          • Testarosa

            Well, I guess that makes two of us — at very least — JG. :-)

            2:13 pm | June 30, 2011
    • Mr. Wow

      Dear JG…
      Actually, I don’t care who “accepts” or “tolerates” me, personally.  I’m not interested in changing hearts and minds that have raised  been a certain way.  “You’ve Got To Be Carefully Taught” goes the old song from “South Pacific” and that’s that, tragically.

      I demand, however that the laws of this country are “accepted.”  Obey the law.  Don’t discrimate.  Don’t stop people from marrying.  Get the hell out of my bedroom.  If I was a woman, I’d say get the hell out of my body. 

      We all want to be loved, “accepted.”  That is impossible.  But it is possible to make laws that must be accepted. 

      2:35 pm | June 30, 2011
      • Jamie
        J G

        Dear Mr. Wow,
        Ok, honestly, the only time (to my knowledge) that I have ever been in a position of being “accepted” vs “tolerated” was as a stepmother. I was tolerated for many years and it hurt me so much. Now, hopefully, I’m accepted.

        I’m telling you this because I sat outside in the sunshine today wondering why you wouldn’t have hurt feelings if you were simply “tolerated” and not “accepted”

        I guess what I’m saying is, I haven’t walked a mile in your shoes, so I may never understand completely, but I’m trying to.

        I accept you just the way you are, you rich, anonymous and famous blog contributor, you.

        Even when you’re wearing mineral makeup from Sephora. ;)

        5:14 pm | June 30, 2011
        • Mr. Wow

          Dear JG…

          First of all, that mineral makeup is really good.  It has a sunscreen.  I look great.

          Second–darling, I am anonymous. Period.  I am not rich or famous.  If you knew my name or saw my picture, you’d go—”what  Who the hell is he?”

          I am a shadow.  My professional life is vastly frustrating  but it is all I can manage.  I am not secure or disciplned or motivated enough to do anything as….me.  Whoever I am.  (Still working that one out.)

          As for tolerated or accepted–person to person, I want to be accepted.  Loved. Liked. 
          In the bigger picture–just accept laws as they roll in.  Don’t tread on me. I won’t tread on you.  The guy accross the street who hates gays?  Fine.  Be hateful.  Just don’t come to my house with a bat or try to stop me from living my life.  I won’t book a gay wedding in your living room. 

          8:51 pm | June 30, 2011
          • Jamie
            J G

            Dear Mr. Wow,
            Please don’t take offense. I was simply having fun by subtly referring to another poster, who was quite the idiot.
            I don’t care if you are rich or poor, gay or straight, famous or regular, etc.
            I just seem to care about you.

            8:57 pm | June 30, 2011
          • Mr. Wow

            Dear JG…

            I am totally NOt offended.  Don’t be silly. 

            And I care for every person who makes the effort to read my drivel and respond. Including Mr. Paul Smith. 

            I am so regular.

            9:24 pm | June 30, 2011
  • ann penn

    In many (all?) European countries one gets married first by the civil authorities and then by the religious institution of one’s choice, if one so chooses. This has the advantage of the state, not the religious institution, conferring the legal status on the couple. In this way all marriages are legal under the same conditions. Religious institutions can determine exactly which such unions they will “bless,” or whatever it is they do.

    Such a system in a sense removes the religious institutions from dictating who can be married, but leaves them free to follow their own belief structure as to whom they accept for such blessings, etc. Which is in keeping with our US view of religious freedom.

    I think one reason there is such an uproar from the conservative religious institutions here in the US is that they control marriage, at least as far as whom they marry. Taking religion out of it from a legal standpoint would be a big step, though I fear it won’t happen here. That said, there already are religious institutions in the US that accept couples of all varieties as active members and will marry them, if such couples so desire and it is legal for them to do so.

    I DO think the primary reason for the conservative religious groups in opposing rights for same sex marriage, women’s control over their own bodies, etc., is based in a desire for (they hope) straight male control over it all, no matter how they phrase it.

    1:15 pm | June 30, 2011
    • Jamie
      J G

      I respectfully will say that I believe that a couple, any couple, should have the right to married by a religious institution. They can tailor the ceremony to suit their beliefs, if they do so believe. (this is my world according to garp, sort of. in other words, in my ideal world)
      For instance, I’m divorced, so I remarried in a unitarian church. (I’m catholic)
      I also told my priest when I was raising my youngest daughter, that I refused to teach her that homosexuality was a sin. I told him that if he wanted that from me, I would simply find another religion. I also told him that I believe in birth control.

      He was cool, my daughter received her communion on my terms. I’m rambling again.
      Why can’t we all just tailor make our own unions, and leave the government out of it.
      I’m also a republican, but go figure. I confuse myself daily.

      1:25 pm | June 30, 2011
      • ann penn

        I agree in theory, but do not think one can have religious freedom and dictate what those beliefs it encompasses must entail.

        One thing I told my kids about religion when they were growing up was if a group says they have all the answers, run! Cults were the main threat then, but that also applies to many more traditional religious groups. We did raise them to be religious and respectful of others. They don’t attend church now, but they are adults, and at least they have some foundation to accept or reject.

        1:36 pm | June 30, 2011
  • Baby Snooks

    I think we forget that it is still legal to discriminate in a majority of states which will not be changed by legalizing marriage.  My personal feeling is and always has been that some put the cart before the horse and the horse tripped over the cart and fell and broke its legs. My observation through the years that those who made marriage the priority over civil rights have never known the sting of discrimination and just simply wanted the right to marry  For themselves.  And made true civil rights a little harder to achieve as a result.  At least as long as we have “Antonin Scalias” echoing the belief that the founding fathers did not believe we were all equal and that some do not have constitutional protections and rights.

    As for the comments about the government staying out of our bedrooms I really would appreciate it if the government would keep its bedrooms, and its hypocrisy, out of our living rooms.  Weiner and his weiner was finally too much even for libertine Baby Snooks. 

    1:22 pm | June 30, 2011
    • ann penn

      Baby S-

      The reason they work for the right to marry is that with it there are many legal implications and benefits like spousal benefits on employer health care, filing joint tax returns, Social Security survivor benefits, military spousal benefits, child custody issues, etc. It’s not just getting the title “married couple”.

      1:41 pm | June 30, 2011
      • Baby Snooks

        Some of those rights can only be conferred by the federal government and I doubt the Supreme Court will strike down DOMA and I doubt Congress will rescind it.  Meanwhile, many worry about finding a job, keeping a job, being able to live where they want to live and not worry about being bashed and findind a prosecutor has used his or her discretion to refuse to file charges or finding a jury believing that somehow they “asked for it”  which happens all the time.  Some provisions of law which have been held up by appellate courts do protect us all. But what the law says and what the law does are two different things.

        The FBI invited Westboro Baptist Church to “participate” in a training session on dealing with domestic terrorism. Was the FBI interested in learning how to deal with groups like Westboro Baptist Church or was the FBI interested in allowing Westboro Baptist Church to learn how to “legally” spread its message of hate on our streets?

        As for DOMA the reality is Bill Clinton could have vetoed it and left it to Congress to override the veto.  But instead he pandered to people who wouldn’t have voted for him anyway. The same way Ann Richards did when the sodomy law was ahcnage in Texas.  Suddenly sodomoy was no longer illegal for heterosexuals. Just for homosexuals. She could have vetoed it. But like Bill Clniton she pandered to people who wouldn’t have voted for her anyway. And in fact voted for George W Bush.   If you ever want to know why I dislike Democrats in general you can look at Bill Clinton and Ann Richards. He was playing Mr. Morality while playing with his cigar.  She was bounced from office by the voters she pandered to and became a lobbyist. You sometimes get more than what you voted for. As many Democrats havne’t figured out for some reason.  The sodomy law is still on the books in Texas despite the Supreme Court having ruled it unconstitutional. When Democrats complain about it,  Republicans love to point out that Ann Richards signed it into law.

        It took years to convince members of Congress like Orrin Hatch that the concept of equal protection in employment and housing and “under the law” applied to all.   And then suddenly they were confronted with this “we demand to the right to marry.” And suddenly the demand for civil rights was replaced with the demand for the right to marry. No doubt at some point Republicans will point out the Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law.  And it will remain on the books. While some continue to demand civil rights instead of marriage rights. Denied civil rights in a way by those who demand marriage rights.  

        As for Congress rescinding DADT the reality is it was that or the draft.  Our military is running out of willing bodies willing to go fight wars for oil.  So those that were not only willing but demanding the right were just suddenly very convenient so to speak.

        And they will be tossed out on the streets along with the rest of the veterans when they are no longer able to go fight the wars for oil.

        This country is a fallen empire at this point. And some are more worried about their right to marry than they are the growing number of people, including many gays and lesbians, who no longer have a job or a roof over their head.  Of course many of the gays and lesbians no longer have a job or a roof over their head simply because they are gay or lesbian. So I guess it’s easier to live under a freeway overpass if you’re married?

        5:48 pm | June 30, 2011
  • Jamie
    J G

    Dear Baby,
    Come on, admit it. You loved Weiner’s sexy weiner.
    Have a peaceful day wowOwow people.

    1:44 pm | June 30, 2011
  • Daniel Sugar

    You’re so lucky to have B.

    I’m still on my own. (I’d like to meet a nice medical professional in the bookstore but it’s always Borders Without Doctors.)

    1:49 pm | June 30, 2011
    • Mr. Wow

      Dear Daniel…

      I am very lucky indeed to have B.  (Who is a doctor, and Jewish!)

      2:07 pm | June 30, 2011
      • Daniel Sugar


        2:16 pm | June 30, 2011
        • Mr. Wow

          Dear Daniel…

          Yeah.  And we didn’t meet anyplace so nice as a bookstore.  I was just seventeen (if you know what I mean–as The Beatles sang) and I was  propped up against a jukebox in a sleazy bar. 

          We circled each other for six years and then…well,  I guess it was meant to be. 

          3:33 pm | June 30, 2011
  • Richard Bassett

    Mr. WoW,
    I am wondering if the end justifies the means or cutting one’s nose off to spite ones face can be applied here. Marriage, gay or straight doesn’t seem to be up there with your other passionate (well, as passionate as they can be for you) causes. You’ve been in a relationship for thirty five years and at 58, seemed settled in for the long run so you are seeing gay marriage as facts, figures and a bit tainted. There are couples out there who envision themselves as being a family…like everyone else. You, like I, have had no interest in life in ‘suburbia’ but some, who are 22…just out of school, entering the job market, do not want ‘to simply live together’. And like a lot of unrest, we are in a period of transition right now, I see no imbalance here. Having to stay in the closet for those decades before me seemed the norm and I am sure that there were those who wanted to stay there, but now…in terms of that transition, at least in most urban places, there is a blended and/or diverse norm. OK, we might have to wait a few years for Montana to come around and such, but the material is out there in all the media outlets. Progress is slow as we are dealing with the ever holy moral and socially ethical beliefs. Or those who want a family, being on the same level as their neighbors. Well, here, in Massachusetts, we have that and the world isn’t swallowing anyone in. And it keeps getting stronger, as it should. You do not have to agree with gay marriage, but that shouldn’t automatically put you in the ‘it’s ethically wrong’ category, which is where more straight people are at. People…even the President…are coming around. No one’s fears are coming true. It’s like a baby learning how to walk again. If I am wrong in interpreting your philosophy…then tell me why, and why I should believe it. Take all of your experiences and out there aside, and come up with a valid point (I point that is equally fair to both gay & straight marriages). Maybe you’ve seen too much and cannot return to that place. But a 26 year old lawyer can or even a 30 year old factory worker. Don’t relish is being your own best enemy. We are entering a generations where your words will soon sound alien to them. Seeking an age when people find it hard to believe that there was ever such an issue. Yes…all 50 states (as well as the world) need to be on board. We’ve learned from discrimination that work has caused us to work harder. But no longer marching in the streets. That’s been done. We need to elect our officials who are in positions to see such a change and support such a change. It will be approved behind closed door. The 1967 hippie sit-in’s against the Vietnam War just kept kids remaining kids. It is 2011, and we are a place where the change needs to be made quickly, from the top and trickle down. These are our transitional years and they will pass… forward, never behind.

    1:59 pm | June 30, 2011
    • Mr. Wow


      I don’t think I could have made myself any more clear–I believe in the right of gay marriage.  I don’t need it for myself, and I wouldn’t marry, even if I was a younger man, just for the symbolism.   As I said, other issues matter more.  But I don’t disparage those who feel strongly that they want to make an official commitment.  I want everybody to live and love freely without goverment interference. 

      President Obama is “evolving”  on the subject.  We will have to wait a long time before we hear any president say, “gay marriage is okay with me.” 

      2:18 pm | June 30, 2011
      • Paul Smith

        Of course you don’t need it; you’re in a place of power and affluence. But what a new found tool for the strivers and rent-boys.

        3:37 pm | June 30, 2011
        • Mr. Wow

          Dear Paul Smith…

          Respectfully, I ask—just what the fuck are you talking about?  I must have missed my life memo on being in  a “place of “power and influence.”  An anonymous unpaid contributor to a website?  Yep, just call me Barry Diller.
          The other day you commented that you hoped my take on gay marriage wouldn’t be “sentimental.”  I don’t think it is.  But damn it, people like you make me want to take a nice fresh shower in sentimentality. 

          4:00 pm | June 30, 2011
          • Testarosa

            Thank you, Mr. Wow, for addressing this petty, mean-spirited, seemingly personal and I-don’t-even-know-what-else comment in as civil a manner as is possible under the circumstances. Truth be told, I was left gasping by the breathtaking venom and, yes, arrogance of its contents, so much so that my brain could not sufficiently connect with my fingertips to bash out a suitable retort on the spur-of-the-moment. My only question is: if this site/forum is supposed to have a moderator, where is she/he at times like these? As good old Charlie Brown would say: “good grief”.

            4:36 pm | June 30, 2011
          • Baby Snooks

            Well if I were the moderator I would have edited Mr. Wow’s comment and it would be “f**k” as it should be.  Of course if I were the moderator I would be deleting half my own comments. So I would never be moderator.  Well, maybe the **” moderator. Such language. I suppose I am just repressed on some level. Or just still living in fear of my grandmother.   Every once in awhile I can feel her presence. And “g*d d**n” comes out “golly doodles.”

            Paul Smith for some reason does not like Mr. Wow. Lots of people don’t like Baby Snooks. Sometimes someone not liking you is a compliment.

            6:07 pm | June 30, 2011
          • Jamie
            J G

            I would really appreciate it if you would explain your last sentence, as I’m feeling rather wounded in my personal life right now.

            Do you mean that if someone doesn’t like you maybe they are unlikable themselves? I’m serious. I need to understand this sentence.

            6:10 pm | June 30, 2011
          • Baby Snooks

            It’s called projection by psychologists and often is merely the projection of envy on some level and often the stone is cast by a hypocrite which is why I always try to look in the mirror so to speak before casting one.

            It’s the root of schadenfreude as it’s called. In a simple manifestation we envy those we believe are happier than we are and so we enjoy it when they are unhappy. In a more complex manifestation we go out of our way to make them unhappy. Usually with the sharp tongue.  And a cast stone. One which often would be cast better at ourselves. Which takes us back to projection.  And envy. And envy is always a compliment to the person being envied even if they don’t realize it.  Most of us don’t. Instead we are wounded by the words. And the stone.

            10:52 pm | June 30, 2011
          • Jamie
            J G

            Thank you, Baby, for that great explanation.

            10:02 am | July 1, 2011
          • Paul Smith

            Remember the mirror next time the names of Mel Gibson, Charlie Sheen, Tiger Woods, Linsey Lohan, Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, the Bushes and the Clintons, Anthony Weiner, Wall Streeters, and especially Liz Peek, arise.

            1:18 pm | July 1, 2011
          • Baby Snooks

            Sorry but those are people who have never appeared in my mirror and never will…

            7:26 am | July 2, 2011
          • Mr. Wow

            Dear Testerosa..

            Paul Smith’s remark didn’t need to be moderated.  Only replied to, asI did.  I see Miss Snooks is offended  by my language and I also understand that.

            This is an open forum.  And this is   possibly the only time I have lost my cool.

            I am a proud profane person. 

            I love the F-word.  So evocative. 

            8:01 pm | June 30, 2011
          • Testarosa

            Believe it or not, Mr. Wow, I barely noticed your F-bomb. Having spent a fair bit of time in Ireland, I guess I’m fairly immune to it (over there, it’s used as a noun, verb, adjective and perhaps even adverb at the drop of a hat and, quite possibly, in the same sentence). They tend to replace the “u” with an “e”, however, and somehow it’s even more pleasurable in that form. Try it: it’s good for the soul (when angry). :-)

            9:41 pm | June 30, 2011
          • Mr. Wow

            Dear Testarosa…

            I’m half Irish and I’m taking you up on that  u/e thing.

            10:17 pm | June 30, 2011
          • Testarosa

            Forgot to mention, the use of the word “feck” in all its grammatical permutations seems to be a multi-generational thing in Ireland: from cradle to grave or “from womb to tomb” as I like to call it. And, FWIW Count Snarkula, you have me “howling”. :-)

            1:13 pm | July 1, 2011
          • Count Snarkula

            The Count has, what has been termed, a “potty mouth”. And it used to horrify his Mere. I can still see that look as she would shake her head and say, “…and you with an English Degree and a Masters in Literature…” Though to be fair, sometimes, when Mere had more than her share of wine, she could manage a few slips herself. That, and describing any encounter with medical professionals.

            12:43 pm | July 1, 2011
          • Count Snarkula

            Oh, and The Count is of Scottish descent. Not Irish, but profane none the less.

            12:45 pm | July 1, 2011
          • ann penn

            My big problem with the increased use of formerly profane words is a belief that one needs “special” words for “special” (extreme) circumstances. When one uses them in every sentence, on what does one fall back when extreme circumstances arise? I suspect such a loss of verbal impact can lead to physical or emotional violence.

            I prefer to keep my stronger language for those times when they might have an impact. I find them to be much more effective when used in that manner.

            8:36 am | July 2, 2011
  • Bonnie O

    Mr. Wow -  For many of us who have had no trouble supporting Domestic Union Partnerships yet somehow stalled at the word “Marriage” when applied to any other couple than heterosexual,  I believe I do stand with that Republican legislator in New York who said something along the lines of “there was no legal reason not to support the measure”.  He was able to put aside his religious beliefs at the Capitol door and do what legally was the correct thing.  There are many in the GOP who agree…. though not with the enthusiasm as expressed here. 

    And for those in the Republican Party who believe that the way in now open for the legalization of plural marriage, I think we shall just have to wait and see if that particular demand is brought forward.

    I have read, however, that a few corporations are considering the idea of withdrawing their acceptance of Domestic Partner Unions in regard to their benefit plans and demand that all “domestic partners’ must now marry in order to be eligible for benefits.   Couples (no matter what sex) who choose to simply live together will not be awarded any “spousal” benefits. 

    7:44 pm | June 30, 2011
    • Mr. Wow

      Dear Baby…

      You are not repressed. Only more refined than Mr. Wow.

      I could have said “what the hell…”   but I was carried away.

      I am so glad you are back.

      8:04 pm | June 30, 2011
      • Baby Snooks

        I forgot you were part Irish. People who like the “F” word usually have been around Irish priests too much. Or around Elizabeth Taylor too much.  We all use it. It just looks more polite when we “censor” it with the “* *”s or the ” _ _” s.  I suspect you didn’t used to see it much in print because it is too much trouble to “censor” it.  In the old days.

        We curse when we are angry.  Try saying “golly doodles” in anger. Cannot be done.  Which takes care of the anger.

        11:06 pm | June 30, 2011
  • Miss Lee

    I too do not believe in marriage FOR ME but I think ALL people should be able to make the same mistakes that I have and marry, and marry and marry.  Someone asked me if I had ever found the person who I wanted to spend the rest of my life with.  Several times, I replied.  And they are all, thankfully, not in my life now. 

    1:39 pm | July 1, 2011
  • Mr. Wow, here ya go.

    Cliffs Notes version: heterosexuals should have no reason to fear that gay marriage will harm the “institution” or “family values” at all, since they have done a bang-up job themselves over the past few decades. Divorce rates up, marriage rates down, out-of-wedlock births, single-parent households and impoverished children WAY up… good job, straights!

    4:34 pm | July 1, 2011
  • Haunted Lady

    When I was in high school, we had a saying,”Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind trying to express itself forcefully.” I must confess to having a feeble mind on too many occasions.

    9:02 am | July 2, 2011
  • Mr. Wow,

    Tried to give you the link to my blog post on this, but apparently links are bad, so here again is the Cliffs Notes version:

    Heterosexuals should have no reason to fear that gay marriage will harm the “institution” or “family values” at all, since they have done a bang-up job themselves over the past few decades. Divorce rates up, marriage rates down, out-of-wedlock births, single-parent households and impoverished children WAY up… good job, straights!

    Personally, I think gay marriages and two-parent couples raising kids would be a BOOST to family values.

    1:23 pm | July 2, 2011
    • careyvick

      Mr. Wow: You said that heterosexals have done a bang up job regarding family values of the institution of marriage. Damn right they have.

      The gay population in the US over the age of 18 is only a paltry 1.5%. NY is now, what the 6th state to legalize gay marriage through legislation?

      As a US citizen, I have the right to vote for the president of the United States, and I’m not permitted to vote if gay people should be allowed to legally marry? Heaven forbid the people of this country have a say so in this matter.

      All you did with your disturbing post is show your true colors Mr. Wow. Remember what I said about 1.5% of the population over the age of 18 being gay. You don’t have the numbers for your BOOST.

      10:55 pm | July 3, 2011
      • Jon T

        Actually you kind of proved his point. The sanctity of marriage has been taking a beating in recent years, all without our paltry 1.5%. Well done. As far as the people of this country having a say so, you do. You voted for the officials that helped make same-sex marriage legal in six states. So thank you for that.

        10:13 am | July 4, 2011
      • Mr. Wow

        Dear careyvick…

        You seem very wrought up, dear.

        Um…actually, I don’t think I made any condemnation of the way heterosexuals have screwed up the “sacred” institution of marriage. (I merely mentioned divorce–that does happen, yes?)   I did say marriage didn’t start up as a sacred thing at all.  But anybody who wants to feel it is, be my guest.

        But since you mention it…yeah, really.  Divorce rates are skyrocketing and marriage itself appears to be entered into with a high expectation that will be be a “nice first wedding.”  

        Personally, I don’t care.  But I ask–what is so “disturbing” about this post and what are my “true colors?”   You mean that I am a gay person who doesn’t think gay marriage is the number one issue in life?  That I have other concerns?  That I believe I should have the right to marry but don’t see the need for it, myself?   Frankly, more gay people I know find that “disturbing.” 

        As for voting against gay marriage, I assume you have voted for the politicans who support your distaste for gay marriage?  And they have been successful in keeping the dreaded thing confined to only six states.  So what’s the beef?  That’s how the system works.  And if you happen to live in a state that  sanctions the horror of same-sex wedlock, be assured nobody will force you to attend a gay wedding.  You will certainly not be invited. 

        Why should you have a vote on the personal lives of your fellow Americans?  Voting for presidents and senators and members of Congress might–if you are very lucky–change your life for the better.    What other people do in their bedrooms or the churches of their choice is none of your business and won’t change your life for better or worse. 

        Now I’m quite wrought up.

        Hope you had a happy, healthy (and very hetero) July 4th.

        Yours in perpetual disturbance, Mr. Wow.

        11:30 am | July 5, 2011
        • Mr. Wow


          If American citizens had the vote on civil rights, you’d still have Mammy pulling in your corsets.  And black people set upon by dogs when they tried to sit at a coffee counter with white folks.

          Not that you’d want either of those things, I’m sure.

          7:00 pm | July 5, 2011
          • Baby Snooks

            Ours is an odd Constitution in that it sets forth the principle that inherent “human rights” cannot be denied simply on the basis of what is known as “tyranny of the majority” although for almost 200 years they were.  So we are still working on it as they say. Reality is those who would deny protections and rights to some would deny protections and rights to all. To all except themselves of course. 

            The homophobia which has begun to  emerge once more in our society is interesting because it is shared by so many who themselves were once denied protections and rights.  Seems when a “minority” assimilates into the “majority” they assimilate the very worst rather then the very best of the majority.

            Many of them of course racial miniorities who have forgotten how the Curse of Ham kept them in chains, and then in nooses hanging from trees, until recently. Although some are still found hanging from a tree. Or found decapitated after having been dragged behind a truck.

            The Curse of Ham for me was the point at which I began to question the god of Abraham. And to question those who worship the god of Abraham. The mean old man in the sky who declared that some were less than others and that those who were “his” people were allowed to kill of those who were “less than” they were if they didn’t stay in their place.  of course there are three “peoples” now who believe they are “his” and believe they have the right to kill the other two. To please the mean old man in the sky. 

            Freud of course was right about religion. It is a manifestation of mental illness. And of the inherent evil of man.  Which is why man created god in his image.

            11:20 am | July 6, 2011
  • careyvick



    12:10 pm | July 8, 2011
    • Count Snarkula

      @careyvick. First of all, quit shouting. Second of all, you are a totally hateful idiot. Third of all, get lost, I am reporting you.

      12:18 pm | July 8, 2011
      • Jon T

        I wouldn’t take him too seriously. He’s typing in all caps and resorting to name calling because his side lost, and really… what else can he do but stomp his feet and yell? Let him rant and rave all he wants. My husband’s and my legally recognized New York State marriage license shields me from such silliness. :-)

        1:14 pm | July 8, 2011
        • Count Snarkula

          Oh Jon T! Congratulations, best wishes, and I sincerely hope for a lifetime of happiness for you both. XOXO – The Count

          1:21 pm | July 8, 2011
          • Jon T

            :-) Thank you Count! Actually we got married in Canada a few years ago and NY recognized it then. But NY making it legal for everyone was a nice belated wedding gift. That, and well-wishes from people like you make it much easier to brush off the careyvicks of the world.

            11:52 pm | July 8, 2011
    • Uh… what exactly is it that a male-female couple can give a child, that a gay couple cannot? Do tell.

      Among straights, divorce is up, marriage rates are down, and 40% of all US kids are now born out of wedlock. And being raised in a single-parent household makes a kid 80% more likely to live in poverty.

      Imagine what it must be like to be adopted by a gay couple… you might be one of the few kids in school with TWO loving parents and no worries about visitation, custody battles and child support payments.

      2:50 pm | July 8, 2011
    • Mr. Wow

      Dear Careyvick…
      Wow.  So sad.  I am sorry for you.  But hate and intolerance doesn’t enter into my feeling.  You are  you are, and will be who you”ll always be.  And will (or have) raised children to believe as you do. 

      I don’t want to come into your life and alter your private, personal beliefs. Or how you live.  Please allow me, as a law-abiding, honest, tax-paying American, the same courtesy. 

      4:19 pm | July 19, 2011
  • careyvick




    12:20 pm | July 8, 2011
  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <br> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <i> <img alt="" align="" border="" class="" height="" hspace="" longdesc="" vspace="" src="" style="" width=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <li> <ol> <p> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <u> <ul>