<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d5529474\x26blogName\x3dDimmy+Karras\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dSILVER\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://dimmykarras.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://dimmykarras.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d2234159095245132931', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Tuesday, November 25, 2003

NYT Gay Marriage Article

"The response by gay couples to last week's ruling by Massachusetts' highest court that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry has been hardly monolithic," claims the story summary below the headline "Gays Respond: 'I Do,' 'I Might' and 'I Won't'" on the New York Times front page. I read the thing because I thought it was saying that some gays opposed the right of homosexuals to get married, which sounded like it didn't make sense.

It turns out that the non-monolithic response cited was that some couples do not plan on marrying even if the right to do so is upheld. Besides the issue of the article appearing misleading, I wonder whether this is good or bad news for the PR campaign to try to convince opponents that the sky won't fall if same-sex marriages become legal. Will the conservatives say the right to marry shouldn't be granted because so few people may be inclined to take advantage of it? Or will they be calmed by the small numbers? Though the article doesn't cover the issue in these terms, all of the gays interviewed must at least be in favor of having the right to marry if they so choose--or are some of them so blinded by the perceived insult of being at last permitted to "ape a heterosexual institution" (or whatever the complaint is)?