Hard to grasp swooning over Tony Kushner
July 11th, 2009 – 8:06 PMOdd, then, that we’ve just had one of the nation’s foremost peddlers of such vitriol here in the Twin Cities. Instead of running him out of town, we’ve spent two months celebrating him in a communal swoon.
I’m talking about Tony Kushner, the playwright featured at the Guthrie Theater in its recent “Everything Kushner'’ festival. For 10 weeks, the Guthrie orchestrated a nonstop hymn of praise to Kushner, turning over all three stages to his work. Bigwigs there were giddy with excitement at the “world premiere'’ of a new Kushner play: “The Intelligent Homosexual’s Guide to Capitalism and Socialism with a Key to the Scriptures.'’
Folks who should know better — politicians, businesspeople and education leaders — were in full groupie mode, hopeful that a bit of cultural stardust might waft their way.
Bigotry and incivility are Kushner’s stock in trade. Take his anti-Catholic rants in the Nation magazine.
There, Kushner branded Pope John Paul II “a homicidal liar'’ who “endorses murder.'’ (The pope, he charged, had not sufficiently deplored the beating death of gay Wyoming student Matthew Shepard.) Kushner denounced Catholic bishops as “mitred, chasubled and coped Pilates,'’ and other church leaders as “flagellants” and “fanatics.”
In response to the pope’s call for civil dialogue, Kushner wrote that he would first ask the pope not to ‘’beat my brains out with a pistol butt and leave me to die by the side of the road.'’ Even Andrew Sullivan, a prominent gay writer, condemned Kushner’s diatribe as hateful.
Kushner is given to similar rants against anyone who has the temerity to view the world differently than he does. For example, his play ‘’Bright Room Called Day'’ ‘’sparked controversy for drawing rather blunt parallels between Adolf Hitler and Ronald Reagan,'’ as Mpls.St. Paul magazine delicately put it. The University of Minnesota staged the play during the Guthrie’s Kushner festival.
Had Kushner smeared a Muslim imam as a ‘’homicidal liar,'’ or compared Al Gore to Hitler, his writing career would likely be over. But here in the Twin Cities, fans clamored for him like seventh-grade girls catching their first glimpse of the Beatles in 1964.
Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak proclaimed April 18 ‘’Tony Kushner Day.'’ The U awarded the playwright an honorary doctorate. Kushner ‘’represents the soul of the liberal arts — or, as we might say, the liberating arts,'’ intoned James Parente Jr., dean of the U’s College of Liberal Arts.
At the Guthrie, theatergoers could display their ‘’Kushner pride'’ by snapping up T-shirts, mugs and magnets. There were lectures and symposia galore on what the New York Times called ‘’the Kushner cosmos.'’ A final Guthrie press release tripped over its exclamation points to declare the festival a ‘’stunning success.'’ “From April 18 through June 28, Tony Kushner reigned in Minneapolis.'’
It’s no surprise that Mpls.St. Paul dubbed the whole affair ‘’Canonizing Kushner.'’
“The Intelligent Homosexual'’ got mixed reviews — a surprise given the fawning reception its creator received. Indeed, Variety magazine ventured a heretical observation: ‘’Performed by lesser talents,'’ it ‘’would likely be an unbearable mess.'’
The play was distinguished by a Kushner hallmark — crudity. Its flavor was captured by a local theater website ‘’How Was the Show?'’: Pill — a main character — ‘’is married [to a man] and ultimately proposes a three way relationship'’ that includes Pill’s prostitute lover Eli. Pill’s ‘’lesbian sister Empty … is still sleeping with her ex-husband,'’ while her new partner Maeve has ‘’become pregnant by Pill’s brother Vinnie.'’
‘’The expletive-filled mouths of most of the characters may shock some theatergoers,'’ advised the website. ‘’Much of the humor [comes] from shock value'’ — as when characters theorize about lesbians’ use of penis-substitutes during pregnancy.
The sight of Twin Cities corporate poobahs and arts patrons lining up to toast Kushner brings to mind ‘’Radical Chic,'’ satirist Tom Wolfe’s lampoon of Leonard Bernstein-style Manhattan sophisticates’ 1960s infatuation with the Black Panthers.
For our movers and shakers, it’s Kushner who is deliciously transgressive. And the fact that Mpls.St. Paul has called him ‘’one of the most unrepentant socialists in the country'’ just adds to his attractions.
True, a few might dismiss Kushner as a snake-oil salesman who — despite his socialist credo — is laughing all the way to the bank. But these Philistines are sure to be overlooked when the invitation lists for next season’s best Kenwood parties are drawn up.
153 Responses to "Hard to grasp swooning over Tony Kushner"
I can guess EBF’s response to this.
I haven’t seen the play. But I’ve always felt that art reflects reality — or at least a reality of the author.
So, you find Kushner crude. No doubt it’s a deserved criticism.
However, have you taken a moment to wonder why Kushner and his ilk might be using crudity and other unsavory … “techniques” … to make their points? Have you stopped to consider that perhaps Kushner has a reason — maybe even a valid reason — to be angry about certain things? That kind of emotion tends to find its way into art. Art is an outlet for many people, and not all art is beautiful. There’s a lot of ugliness in the world, and art reflects that ugliness. Oftentimes art is the only healthy release available. And sometimes even art is unhealthy.
I’m not trying to defend Kushner — really, I know little about him and his work, so I don’t have much of an opinion — but surely you can understand (can’t you?) the anger, frustration and despair many in the GLBT community have suffered and continue to suffer, far too often at the hands of those professing a religious worldview.
If you don’t understand where people like Kushner are coming from, perhaps you should take a look in a mirror and reflect on your possible contributions to his psyche. Look deep. Ask yourself what your art might look like had you lived a life like Kushner’s.
DJ, did you guess right?
I was pretty close. I was thinking you might focus more on the first line of the column and try to flip it with the customary retort of “You’re a bigot.”
Oh well, I tried.
However, have you taken a moment to wonder why Kushner and his ilk might be using crudity and other unsavory … “techniques” … to make their points?
The reasons don’t justify the actions. If I felt gay people were discriminating against me, would that justify me making anti-gay music. Maybe encouraging violence against homosexuals and trying to convince people they are evil. It’s just “art” after all, and I’m just “expressing myself”.
Hate-filled art is just as bad as hate-filled speech, hate-filled actions, and anything else. It encourages hatred, which leads to violence. I would expect more people to frown on this.
I was thinking you might … try to flip it with the customary retort of “You’re a bigot.”
I? Customarily call people bigots? Seriously? Did you mean me personally, or that such a retort is “customary” in general under circumstances such as these?
While I cannot claim to have never accused anyone of bigotry (moi comes to mind — and he really is a bigot, among other more unsavory things), it’s not a slur I throw around often, so I am confused about whether I should take offense at your comment….
Haven’t you called Mrs. Kersten “bigot” on several occasions when it comes to gay rights?
Maybe I’m thinking of JonR.
Either way, it seems like anytime Mrs. Kersten writes about gay rights, she ends up being called a bigot. Hence the “customary”. Granted, you seem to be the only homosexual who still reads the blog since none of the others still comment.
I didn’t mean it to be offensive, but it certainly wouldn’t be the first time I’ve unintentionally offended someone and it certainly won’t be the last. Take it as you will.
If I felt gay people were discriminating against me, would that justify me making anti-gay music.
That hasn’t stopped some people. But there’s a big difference between the GLBT community and the Catholic church — namely that the latter is an organized institution. If a few gay people discriminated against you, it wouldn’t stand to reason that every gay person would discriminate against you. But when the Catholic church discriminates against you, you’re facing a monolithic institution even if not every individual Catholic agrees with the discrimination.
Sorry, but the Catholic church is fair game. (And as I’ve said before, I support the right of others to express anti-gay sentiments, even if I disagree with those sentiments.)
Maybe encouraging violence against homosexuals and trying to convince people they are evil.
“Encouraging violence.” Hmm. What does it take to “encourage violence?” If telling your story of being discriminated against causes people to be angry, and they act on that anger, have you “encouraged violence?” Do people not have a right to tell their stories?
It’s just “art” after all, and I’m just “expressing myself”.
Don’t you have the right to express yourself? Must every artist take responsibility for the actions of everyone who views his art?
Hate-filled art is just as bad as hate-filled speech, hate-filled actions, and anything else. It encourages hatred, which leads to violence.
Yet there is a lot of hate in the world, and art, of necessity, will reflect that. Sometimes it is healthy. Sometimes it gets people to start thinking about an injustice, and constructive steps are taken to correct that injustice. It need not necessarily lead to violence — violence on the part of art patrons is not the responsibility of the artist.
Of course I understand that as a Catholic, you take offense to any art perceived as “anti-Catholic.” Just as I take offense at many things I perceive as “anti-gay.” But I have somehow managed to restrain myself from committing a crime in reaction to any anger I experience from “anti-gay” expression.
And it is possible to take some things too personally….
Haven’t you called Mrs. Kersten “bigot” on several occasions when it comes to gay rights?
No, not that I remember. I may make my points in a blunt or harsh manner, but I don’t think I’ve ever called Katherine a bigot.
Maybe I’m thinking of JonR.
Yes, I believe it is JonR. His language tends to be much more … colorful … when directed at Katherine.
I approach Katherine differently. I approach her as a somewhat misguided soul who simply needs the opportunity to see things from a different viewpoint. I think she can change her mind, given enough time and evidence to chew on. Although her logic is often faulty (which makes much of her writing mediocre), she does consider what others say — the antithesis of a bigot.
I would reserve the word “bigot” for the likes of the misnamed marketplace_of_ideas. Even the hard-headed DeaconBlues doesn’t deserve the “bigot” label.
Either way, it seems like anytime Mrs. Kersten writes about gay rights, she ends up being called a bigot. Hence the “customary”.
Oh, OK. That makes sense.
Granted, you seem to be the only homosexual who still reads the blog since none of the others still comment.
I wouldn’t count on it. I think there is a large number of people who read this blog who never work up the nerve to comment.
I didn’t mean it to be offensive…
Then I take no offense.
Now, I may have never called Katherine a bigot, but I have called her hypocritical on many occasions.
Kushner is given to similar rants against anyone who has the temerity to view the world differently than he does.
Hmmm….
Katherine, I really like your new picture and you look pretty attractive.
Why do conservative women look so much better that liberal womem?
Sorry about the delayed response. Had to run off to work and was almost late because the stupid Twins almost made a huge comeback and I wanted to watch the game end…
If a few gay people discriminated against you, it wouldn’t stand to reason that every gay person would discriminate against you. But when the Catholic church discriminates against you, you’re facing a monolithic institution even if not every individual Catholic agrees with the discrimination.
I disagree. Some people would argue that George Bush has created more terrorists because he was generally hated around the world, especially in predominantly Islamic countries. But terrorists don’t hate just George Bush. Because he was President, they hated Americans. I would consider an attack on George Bush an attack against America. Much in the same way, an attack against the Pope is an attack against Catholics. Do you think Kushner is really only trying to attack the Pope and other leaders of the Catholic Church? Because it certainly sounds like an attack on Catholics everywhere.
I’m not debating his right to create hate-filled “art”, I’m saying exactly what Mrs. Kersten is saying: any form of hate-filled “art” ought to be discouraged, not praised. I doubt Kushner would make any money with a play mocking black people or gay people or Muslims. Instead people would look down on him. That is what should be happening now.
What does it take to “encourage violence?
I meant saying things like, “Kill gay people”. I don’t know the details of Kushner’s plays, and I doubt he goes that far, but I don’t think any form of anti-whatever “art” should be promoted. If Kushner has a problem with the Catholic Church, he should be able to be civil about it.
Must every artist take responsibility for the actions of everyone who views his art?
Not every artist. For example, I thought it was preposterous that some people tried to blame Marilyn Manson for Columbine. As far as I know (I’m not a big Manson fan), Manson doesn’t tell people to kill or commit suicide. Is his music depressing and full of controversial lyrics? Yes. But it’s up to the listener to derive meaning from it. Some art, like the cartoons put out by Democrats during the Reconstruction period, (I was just studying that, so it’s fresh on the mind) specifically targeted black people and specifically encouraged anti-black violence. From all these sentiments (encouraged by the cartoons) came the creation of the KKK and other similar groups. That’s kind of a poor example, but I’m no art connoisseur. Actually, I think my previous example of Bush was pretty lame, but it’s 6:40 a.m. and I’m dead tired… so bear with me and I hope you understand what I’m saying, even if my an@logies don’t stand up to close scrutiny.
And it is possible to take some things too personally….
Tell me about it… any guy who’s ever had a girlfriend can vouch for that.
I may make my points in a blunt or harsh manner, but I don’t think I’ve ever called Katherine a bigot.
My mistake. Sorry about that.
Good night all.
Kushner is given to similar rants against anyone who has the temerity to view the world differently than he does. For example, his play ‘’Bright Room Called Day’’ ‘’sparked controversy for drawing rather blunt parallels between Adolf Hitler and Ronald Reagan,’’ as Mpls.St. Paul magazine delicately put it.
How daring. How avante garde. How . . . tediously, tritely, predictably liberal. If this guy’s career tanks, he can always sign on as a Daily Kos staff writer.
Had Kushner smeared a Muslim imam as a ‘’homicidal liar,'’ or compared Al Gore to Hitler, his writing career would likely be over. But here in the Twin Cities, fans clamored for him like seventh-grade girls catching their first glimpse of the Beatles in 1964.
I feel the inspiration for a new play lionizing Kushner’s Minnesota acolytes: The Unbearable Lightness of Being Liberal
Why do I get the feeling, based upon her commentary, that Mrs. Kersten did not attend any of the Kushner Festival events?
Actually, I think my previous example of Bush was pretty lame, but it’s 6:40 a.m. and I’m dead tired… so bear with me and I hope you understand what I’m saying, even if my an@logies don’t stand up to close scrutiny.
You must be tired! I didn’t follow your Bush example at all, and it sounds like you didn’t understand what I was saying about how the GLBT community differs from the Catholic church. The Pope represents all Catholics, and the church is an organized institution with a hierarchy. No one represents all GLBT people, and the existence of pro-GLBT organizations does not mean that the GLBT community as a whole is organized in a way similar to the Catholic church.
Some art, like the cartoons put out by Democrats during the Reconstruction period…specifically targeted black people and specifically encouraged anti-black violence.
That’s different — because in this case, the people creating the art were not victims of discrimination. Kushner, like all GLBT people, is a victim of the discrimination practiced and encouraged by the Catholic church.
To equate a victim’s backlash at his tormentors with the hate speech of perpetrators of discrimination is to willfully distort a situation and try to view the oppressed as the oppressor, and the oppressor as the oppressed. In your Reconstruction period example above, one would simply say something like, “Those black people are sure vicious toward those democrats! Those black people are hateful, and isn’t it horrible how the democrats are suffering for it!” See how it turns the real victims into the demons, and the oppressors into the victims? It accomplishes this by ignoring the very valid reasons for the anger of blacks of that era. This is a ploy that the religious right is using more and more these days — and Katherine’s column today is Exhibit A.
I believe that art, whether produced by the oppressed or the oppressor, offers a unique view into the mind of the artist. There is certainly value to be found in the art of the oppressed, but there is also value to be found in the art of the oppressor. Such art tends to be offensive, often chilling, but it does give a glimpse of the evil of which man is capable. It’s unpleasant, but important to know. On some level it makes us all more accountable to each other. It makes us more human.
But Kushner is not an oppressor, no matter how Katherine and her ilk try to spin it. Kushner falls squarely within the realm of the oppressed, and his art reflects that. While it may be unfortunate that Kushner feels the need to produce his art in the manner he does, his art nonetheless speaks some truth about his life experience.
Perhaps if Kushner’s oppressors were to take some of Kushner’s lessons to heart and take steps to right their wrongs, artists like Kushner would feel less need for “crudity.”
Is it necessary for Twin Cities patrons of the arts to grovel at the feet of Kushner to achieve ’sophistication’?
If Kushner finds himself on a psychiatrist’s couch, how is KK deemed responsible?
Is commentary on the quality of Kushner’s work to be declared off-limits because of his sexual orientation?
How, pray tell, is Kushner oppressed? And by whom?
“rants against anyone who has the temerity to view the world differently than he does.”
Hmmm….”
I love it when she uses that line too EBF!!
//If there’s anything we Minnesotans don’t like, it’s bigotry
Maybe that’s why we don’t like you, Katherine. You are both a homophobe and religious bigot.
Knock it off editor, being against gay marriage doesn’t make someone a bigot or homophobe. Even extreme liberal Paul Wellstone voted against gay marriage for the cryin’ out loud. Was Paul a bigot?
Oh boy.
Katherine, did you actually attend any of the Kushner shows at the G, or is your article based solely on the criticisms of others?
Tony Kushner has emerged as one of the strongest voices among current American playwrights. As when any popular artist (be it a writer, filmmaker, playwright, whatever) premieres a new work, there is always a big celebration and promotional effort. For instance, in the lead up to the new Harry Potter movie release this week, ABCFamily has declared this entire weekend “Harry Potter weekend”, and their station is repeatedly running all of the previous movies. Dan Brown’s new book comes out this summer, and bookstores everywhere are setting out tables with other works readers might like.
It was a huge “get” for both the G and Minneapolis to premiere Kushner’s new play, and I applaud their decision to turn it into a festival, both from an artistic and marketing strategy. We attracted theatre-lovers from all over the world to our city for the event, bringing a boost to the local economy, not just the G.
I am not a fan of a lot of Kushner’s work. I find him a bit long-winded for my attention span. Having said that, “Angels in America” (not included in the Kushner festival) is one of the smartest scripts I have had the pleasure to read.
“Intellectual Homosexual…” is a brand new show. The dates were set for the festival before Kushner even had a title, let alone a script finished. He has admitted that he will never sign on to another premiere before a show is finished to his liking. What premiered at the G was a preview, and when it opens in New York next year, I don’t doubt that the show will look quite different from what we saw here in Minneapolis.
Art, especially writing, is immediate. We construct thoughts that spring from our own minds and hearts, and I’d imagine that many gay writers right now can’t help but feel the pulse of anger and defeat at many social and cultural institutions in this present climate that we are living in. Although a playwright constructs a fictional reality on stage, each character and situation inherently comes from the author.
I did not attend “Intellectual Homosexual”, so I speak on that show from a writer’s point of view.
However, I did find it interesting that Katherine neglected to mention the other Kushner show, the one which actually had the best reviews and attendance–”Caroline or Change”. A tale of a boy, his family, and their maid in New Orleans during the civil rights era. Why didn’t you mention that? Because it exemplified none of the characteristics which you attribute to Kushner in your article? Because there was no crudity? No homosexuality?
Your omission of “Caroline” exemplifies why a festival like what the G put on is so important. To fully understand an artist–or, for that matter, anyone, we must take into account their entire body of work.
The hypocrisy of your rant on Kushner and his art and your assertion that he is not someone to be celebrated because of his “rants against anyone who has the temerity to view the world differently than he does”, is astounding.
I am appalled that the Strib would publish this badly researched and incomplete article in their “On Stage” section.
How, pray tell, is Kushner oppressed? And by whom?
The Catholic church, for one, oppresses Kushner (and all GLBT people) by supporting discriminatory doctrine and public policy. These doctrines and policies, when observed, deny GLBT civil and other rights not denied to heterosexuals. Examples include the right to a civil marriage with the person of one’s choice and the expectation of life-long celibacy.
If you seriously do not understand how the Catholic church and other religious institutions oppress the GLBT community, I must conclude that you live in a vacuum.
TheJester — finally someone gets it!
And you need not read any further that the first paragraph. Anyone, meaning KK here, who presumes to write arts criticism without having actually seen the works of art she is criticizing, should be dismissed out of hand as a petulant fraud with nothing more than a preconceived ax to grind.
Knock it off editor, being against gay marriage doesn’t make someone a bigot or homophobe. Even extreme liberal Paul Wellstone voted against gay marriage for the cryin’ out loud. Was Paul a bigot?
d2, if you’re going to bring up Paul Wellstone, you need to include all of the pertinent facts. Such as the fact that he changed his mind about same-sex marriage. In the end, he regretted his vote and supported same-sex marriage.
As for not being a bigot if you don’t support same-sex marriage, I’ve been rethinking this one, but have yet to reach a conclusion.
Evil,
Many homosexuals are against gay marriage as well, Elton John being one of them.
Many homosexuals are against gay marriage as well, Elton John being one of them.
Elton John? Big whoop. What’s your point, d2? What does this have to do with Paul Wellstone, or my rethinking of the “bigot” label? You don’t actually think that Elton John is going to change my mind, do you?
First, Elton John is a citizen of the United Kingdom, not the United States, so I don’t really care what he thinks about the issue.
Second, Elton John is legally partnered in a civil union, an option we don’t have here.
Third, just because some gay people oppose same-sex marriage doesn’t mean that the rest of us should oppose it.
Fourth, those gay people who oppose same-sex marriage need not enter one, but they — like you — should not have the right to make that decision for the rest of us.
Fifth, I don’t know if I can believe your claim, given your proclivity to omit pertinent facts.
And finally (for now), I think there are far more gay people who favor same-sex marriage than there are gay people who oppose it, despite any opinion Elton John may espouse.
Appreciated EBF’s first comment. But there is another perspective.
I live in one of the most redneck rural counties in the state. The county chair is likey lesbian. I say likely because most people just assume and nobody cares.
This time of year I reserve my insults for deerflies. That doesn’t work either since more seem attracted by the commotion and then I need to seek shelter.
I’ve enjoyed most of KK’s articles since they mostly seek a civility we are losing. Things are hard for everybody, let’s not make them harder.
“Second, Elton John is legally partnered in a civil union, an option we don’t have here.”
As I’ve said in the past, I’m not against having some sort of civil unions for gay couples, but I’m against calling those unions marriage and I’m in favor of preserving traditional marriage.
Evil, I have nothing against homosexuals. I respect you and enjoy reading your comments, and I’m sure you are a good person.
I’ve enjoyed most of KK’s articles since they mostly seek a civility we are losing.
That is a different perspective….
I’m against calling those unions marriage
Well, d2, neither you nor your religion have exclusive right to use of a word. I married my parnter in Canada nearly six years ago. We consider our union a marriage. Has our use of the word “marriage” somehow cheapened your marriage? If so, how? And how exactly would government recognition of same-sex marriage change your “traditional” marriage? Wouldn’t is still be “traditional?”
“characters theorize about lesbians’ use of penis-substitutes”
Yes, and we know what homosexual males use as a vagina-substitute.
My advice: Accept no substitutes.
“Fifth, I don’t know if I can believe your claim, given your proclivity to omit pertinent facts.”
And/or lie.
Evil,
Homosexuals have completely altered the term “gay” from it’s original meaning, let’s not do the same thing with the term “marriage”. Again, I think many homosexual pressure groups are more interested in stealing the term marriage than anything to do with rights. Why can’t you guys come up with your own word for it?
Hello Greg, my liberal extremist friend. How’s your day going?
EBF, your provocation belies an acknowledgment that you are not married. A “partner” is not a “husband” or “wife.” A partner is a very broadly inclusive term. In fact, I affectionately call my dog “partner” or “partner pup” since he is indeed a legally bonded member of our homestead.
“The county chair is likey lesbian. I say likely because most people just assume and nobody cares.”
Exactly. Nobody cares. This is the world’s most boring subject.
I like the idea of general public policy to be “don’t ask, don’t tell”, with “don’t listen” added. In other words, if someone tells you about their sexual proclivities, you don’t listen, because you don’t care.
“A “partner” is not a “husband” or “wife.””
I must live out in the sticks. When a lesbian neighbor couple of mine had a domestic issue in which one of them treatened to shoot their horses, it took the police officer quite a while to understand what they meant by “partner”. He kept thinking they were in business together.
Anyway, they are long gone now and I guess one of them ended up in a mental institution for a while. A real nice family with four kids from northern Minnesota bought the house and we’re very happy to have them as neighbors.
You may remember me talking about about the guy wearing a blue dress and high heels mowing his lawn? That was the new roommate for one of the gals after the other had to leave.
EBF, your provocation belies an acknowledgment that you are not married.
egreen, context matters.
Homosexuals have completely altered the term “gay” from it’s original meaning, let’s not do the same thing with the term “marriage”.
Good grief, d2, are we going to go around about this yet again? Languages naturally evolve and change. Word meanings change over time. “Marriage” already has multiple meanings in the vernacular, so your crusade to keep the meaning of “marriage” from changing has already lost.
There is nothing that you can do, and no law that can be written, to stop the natural evolution of language. Please learn to deal with it.
I’ve posted this before from dictionary.com, but it seems I need to post it again:
GAY has had various senses dealing with sexual conduct since the 17th century. A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer, a gay house a brothel. This sexual world included homosexuals too, and GAY as an adjective meaning “homosexual” goes back at least to the early 1900s. After World War II, as social attitudes toward sexuality began to change, GAY was applied openly by homosexuals to themselves, first as an adjective and later as a noun.
As you can see, the implication is that it was heterosexuals who first used the word “gay” to mean homosexual persons. So stop accusing the gay community of altering the meaning of this word; the gay community adopted this word only after its meaning had already been “altered” by straight people!
That’s right, d2; it’s the fault of straight people like you that the word “gay” now means “homosexual!”
So now, d2, please stop trying to rewrite history — but do go and eat your words!
Why can’t you guys come up with your own word for it?
Because no one owns the word. We’re as free to use it as you are. Everyone knows what “married” and “marriage” mean, whether used in the context of same- or opposite-sex (or even plural) unions.
You may remember me talking about about the guy wearing a blue dress and high heels mowing his lawn?
I’ve never worn high heels, but I can’t imagine they’d be very comfortable for yard work. Maybe there was a bit of a joke going on at your expense, d2….
“Everyone knows what “married” and “marriage” mean, whether used in the context of same- or opposite-sex (or even plural) unions.”
Evil, I simply think it’s important to preserve tradition marriage, and calling gay civil unions marriage defeats that.
“I’ve never worn high heels, but I can’t imagine they’d be very comfortable for yard work. Maybe there was a bit of a joke going on at your expense, d2…. ”
Just me, but I’m guessing it was just D2 fantasizing ..
it’s not a far reach that D2 has issues differentiating fantasy and reality.
“I’ve never worn high heels, but I can’t imagine they’d be very comfortable for yard work. Maybe there was a bit of a joke going on at your expense, d2….”
Evil, I think people should be free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else, in fact, this guy mowing the lawn in a blue dress wearing high heals got a good laugh out of me. He might have fit in fine in the communist 5th. district which elected radical Keith Hakim Ellison, but he’s very out of place in the 6th. which supports Michele Bachmann.
“Just me, but I’m guessing it was just D2 fantasizing ..”
My good friend and former neighbor who moved to Alaska has it on video liberal Greg. I’d be happy to get it for you if you would like.
“Evil, I simply think it’s important to preserve tradition marriage, and calling gay civil unions marriage defeats that. ”
Why do you think that? Does it make your own marriage less valuable?
or ..
do you think that people who are not like you (well, that’s questionable anyway) don’t deserve the same rights?
or..
are you going to give us that business about children being taught that gay people exist and can be married (which parents have the right to elect they not be taught in public schools during those particular classes) ..
or ..
do you think you’re better than they/homosexuals are?
EBF
This is coming from my “vacuum chamber”.
Most of us believe marriage defines the union between a man and a woman, and is a Holy Sacrament of the Christian faith.
Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
Read Ephesians 5 as I have frequently at weddings.
Those homosexuals who seek a permanent committed relationship to avail themselves of government and workplace “spousal” benefits have my support in that endeavor.
There is no need to take a jack-hammer to a philosophical pillar of the Christian religion in order to secure secular rights.
And by the way fascist extremist liar psychotic D2 ..
I’m doing fine.
“My good friend and former neighbor who moved to Alaska has it on video liberal Greg. I’d be happy to get it for you if you would like.”
Perfect! We’ll all finally be able to see D2!
“There is no need to take a jack-hammer to a philosophical pillar of the Christian religion in order to secure secular rights. ”
Um .. this isn’t an exclusively Christian ‘thing’.
Unless of course you’re saying that those of the jewish, islamic, hindu, etc. faiths are not allowed to marry as well?
Furthermore, can a homosexual be a Christian?
And lastly, whether you like it or not, we are not a Christian nation .. unless of course, you’d like us to become a theocracy?
“And lastly, whether you like it or not, we are not a Christian nation .. unless of course, you’d like us to become a theocracy?”
Thanks God our Founding Fathers believed in Him, or we would have turned out like a third world hell hole like Somalia of Haiti.
“And lastly, whether you like it or not, we are not a Christian nation .. unless of course, you’d like us to become a theocracy?”
Thanks God our Founding Fathers believed in Him, or we would have turned out like a third world hell hole like Somalia or Haiti.
“Thanks God our Founding Fathers believed in Him, or we would have turned out like a third world hell hole like Somalia of Haiti.”
I can’t wait for you to explain this logic .. err .. remark … err ..
I can’t even say it.
What makes you think that would happen?
Do you understand our founding fathers were specific in their planning that we NOT become a theocracy?
Do you get that?
They used a belief in God as a commonality D2, it was nothing more than that because in their wisdom they were determined that the citizens of this nation NOT be persecuted because of any religion they practice or choose NOT to practice.
Liberal Greg,
There is a reason that America turned out to be the greatest country on earth, and it wasn’t because of atheism, soci@lism, or communism.
In God We Trust has put us above the communist and third world dictatorships.
“In God We Trust has put us above the communist and third world dictatorships. ”
I’d argue that e’ plurabus unum is what keeps us strong ..
Of course, for most of us that’s true.
Most of us believe marriage defines the union between a man and a woman, and is a Holy Sacrament of the Christian faith.
“Most of us?” For whom do you claim to speak?
Those homosexuals who seek a permanent committed relationship to avail themselves of government and workplace “spousal” benefits have my support in that endeavor.
Glad to have that support. Unfortunately, we do not have such support from the Catholic church, which advocates that civil, secular government adopt its view of marriage as the law of the land for all.
There is no need to take a jack-hammer to a philosophical pillar of the Christian religion in order to secure secular rights.
First, as Greg63 pointed out, Christians do not own “marriage” — either the institution or the word.
Second, I support the right of religious institutions to grant or deny their sacrament of marriage to couples as they see fit.
Finally, as an atheist, I advocate same-sex marriage as a civil, not religious, institution (although I am pleased when religious institutions do decide to marry same-sex couples), which means that my comments about same-sex marriage, unless stated otherwise, refer to a civil and not to a religious institution.
From my perspective, it is certain religious institutions and persons, not GLBT people, who wield the jackhammer.
Greg,
To state that marriage is a Christian Sacrament makes no assertion about marriage in other belief systems. It is in no way exclusionary.
Can homosexuals be Christian? Hell, yes!
The Founding Fathers (Several were clergy) were nearly unanimous in their Christian belief. The remainder were deists. This is historical record.
The wording of the first amendment regarding religion pertained to the Congress only, not to the states. The individual states were free to have a ’state’ church, and some of the colonies were sufficiently homogeneous to so declare. While attempting to cobble together a viable republic, the Founders saw no benefit in messing with the states on religious issues.
Theocracy? The Founders, historians and philosophers that they were, recognized the dangers of merging secular and religious power, and the abuses spawned by religious intolerance. There would be no seat at the table of federal governance for a bishop. In no way, however, was religious belief intended to be removed from the body politic, the people, the public square, or even public buildings. For decades, worship services were conducted in public buildings until churches were built.
This nation’s revolutionary experiment in self-government is predicated on the moral underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian tradition, expecting that the citizen abide by the tenets of his faith so as to insure a future of ordered liberty. Simply put, it is hoped that “Mr. Conscience” rides on all of our shoulders.
Thanks God our Founding Fathers believed in Him
Not all of them did, d2. You do know that, don’t you?
“There is a reason that America turned out to be the greatest country on earth, and it wasn’t because of atheism, soci@lism, or communism.”
And it wasn’t because of fascists either D2 ..
nor was has it evolved due to extremism.
It’s about moderates D2 ..
The individual states were free to have a ’state’ church, and some of the colonies were sufficiently homogeneous to so declare.
Yet today it would be considered unconstitutional — and rightly so.
In no way, however, was religious belief intended to be removed from the body politic, the people, the public square, or even public buildings.
Yet there was never an intent to force people to practice any particular faith. We are free to practice any faith we wish — or none at all.
Simply put, it is hoped that “Mr. Conscience” rides on all of our shoulders.
Must one be religious to have a conscience? The evidence would seem to suggest the opposite.
Evil, I simply think it’s important to preserve tradition marriage, and calling gay civil unions marriage defeats that.
Please explain how. Exactly how.
Do you think “traditional marriage” is going away? Well, I suppose that could depend partly on how you define “traditional marriage.” But given that most people are heterosexual, opposite-sex marriage is in no danger of disappearing.
Most of us believe marriage defines the union between a man and a woman, and is a Holy Sacrament of the Christian faith.
Do you believe that opposite-sex and same-sex couples should have the same rights, privileges, benefits and responsibilities?
If so, do you think that this could be accomplished by granting marriage to opposite-sex couples and civil unions to same-sex couples?
If so, do you beleve in “separate-but equal?”
“nor was has it evolved due to extremism.”
The problem Greg is that you liberals consider people with the same values as our Founding Fathers extremists, when they are exactly the people we need in Washington to counter the radical soci@list agenda of the extreme leftists who have taken control of Washington and are destroying our economy.
If you seriously wanted permanent legal recognition and privileges for your relationships you would lobby for them and they would be written into law. But you don’t care enough for your relationships to do that. Instead you antagonize civil society to undefine marriage; a husband and wife, man and woman. And you are learning that marriage vows are taken to heart by most; better or worse, rich or poor, sickness or health, till death do part.
If you understood such a relationship and enjoyed such a relationship you would accept society’s blessings under a covenant special to you.
“To state that marriage is a Christian Sacrament makes no assertion about marriage in other belief systems. It is in no way exclusionary.”
No, it’s not exclusionary ..
“The wording of the first amendment regarding religion pertained to the Congress only, not to the states.”
So what you mean to say is that our congress is not to pass laws which would be exclusionary per religious belief correct?
However, you’re also inclined to believe that states will be able to execute laws which would be exclusionary?
“The individual states were free to have a ’state’ church, and some of the colonies were sufficiently homogeneous to so declare. While attempting to cobble together a viable republic, the Founders saw no benefit in messing with the states on religious issues”
And why do you think they believed that they shouldn’t ‘mess around’ with a states religious issues?
Becuase maybe they believed the states would prefer to relieve themselves of any religious persecution?
“Theocracy? The Founders, historians and philosophers that they were, recognized the dangers of merging secular and religious power, and the abuses spawned by religious intolerance. There would be no seat at the table of federal governance for a bishop. In no way, however, was religious belief intended to be removed from the body politic, the people, the public square, or even public buildings. For decades, worship services were conducted in public buildings until churches were built.”
I’ve never indicated that religious believe be removed .. I am however agreeing that the founding fathers were intent on this being a secular country vs. a theocratic society.
As such, you’ve agreed to the true essence of the constitution which was intended to free all citizens of religious bindings.
“This nation’s revolutionary experiment in self-government is predicated on the moral underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian tradition, expecting that the citizen abide by the tenets of his faith so as to insure a future of ordered liberty. Simply put, it is hoped that “Mr. Conscience” rides on all of our shoulders”
You are correct .. so when ‘Mr. Conscience’ asks you if you are not allowing the rights of two Christian homosexuals to marry each other ..
what would he/she say?
“The problem Greg is that you liberals consider people with the same values as our Founding Fathers extremists, when they are exactly the people we need in Washington to counter the radical soci@list agenda of the extreme leftists who have taken control of Washington and are destroying our economy. ”
I look at extremists on both sides twisting our constitution and the wishes of our founding fathers into whatever they want to fuel their agendas.
And D2, I’m pretty sure that the founding fathers would be pretty unanimous in believing that your website and extremist beliefs do NOT follow the intent of the our constitution….
they weren’t into exclusion.
For the life of me I cannot figure out why people are so afraid of gay folks being married.
It makes absolutely no sense since it should have NO effect on your own marriage .. none, zero.
As far as destroying our ‘moral fibers’ .. well, I’m not sure we could do any worse to the term marriage than has already been done.
For those of you trying to save the ’sanctity’ of marriage by disallowing homosexuals to marry, you may want to consider starting somewhere esle ..
like your own backyard or perhaps your own conservative Christian coalitions?
I guess in all, it’s got something to do with insecurity in your own marriages/relationships.
Otherwise you’d figure out that your marriage doesn’t belong to the government ..
it belongs to you and your God or a choice of another higher source.
“It makes absolutely no sense since it should have NO effect on your own marriage .. none, zero.”
I’m concerned about the damage it would do to our children Greg, and I’ve explained this to you before.
Goodnight all!
Greg,
Don’t take my word for things. Do your own research and satisfy yourself.
Read about Jefferson, his religious orientation, and the reasons for his letter to the Danbury Baptists….and how his ’separation’ metaphor has been twisted.
Then take a look at Everson v.Board of Education (1947). Study Justice Hugo Black’s background and learn of his anti-Catholic bigotry and how the Everson, and subsequent rulings, had the effect of separating all things religious from civil government at all levels, in clear violation of the Constitution.
Monumental difference.
If you seriously wanted permanent legal recognition and privileges for your relationships you would lobby for them and they would be written into law.
Isn’t that what we’re doing by lobbying for same-sex marriage? The privileges we seek are the same marriage already grants to opposite-sex couples, so why should we lobby for something else?
But you don’t care enough for your relationships to do that. Instead you antagonize civil society to undefine marriage; a husband and wife, man and woman.
“Marriage” has multiple meanings. I want the same thing that everyone else has — marriage. And if people find that “antagonistic,” too bad. It is not my intent to antagonize anyone, but it seems to me that some people choose to feel antagonized simply because they oppose civil recognition of same-sex relationships or they have the need to feel that their marriage is superior to anything a same-sex couple could have.
And you are learning that marriage vows are taken to heart by most; better or worse, rich or poor, sickness or health, till death do part.
What makes you think that I don’t take my marriage vows seriously? My husband and I have been together for over twenty years (and married for nearly six — would have been sooner had same-sex marriage been available sooner).
If you understood such a relationship and enjoyed such a relationship you would accept society’s blessings under a covenant special to you.
I don’t care about covenants; they are religious constructs, and I am an atheist. But even if I were religious, covenants have no business being peddled by our secular government. Covenants should be kept within the sphere of religion.
But I do understand your point. The problem is that a “covenant special to you” is too easily translated into an “institution that isn’t really equal to what straight people get.”
I used to think that civil unions for same-sex couples would suffice. The experiences New Jersey has had with that arrangement convinced me otherwise.
I’ve said many times that the best solution is for the state to grant all couples, both same- and opposite-sex, civil unions and leave “marriage” to religious institutions. Assuming you’re married, would you trade your civil marriage for a civil union? If not, why would you ask me to accept something you wouldn’t have?
Antoher point: some religious institutions do marry same-sex couples. By denying them the right to marry same-sex couples, you deny them of their right to freedom of religion.
“I’m concerned about the damage it would do to our children Greg, and I’ve explained this to you before.”
You’ve explained paranoid gibberish and lies … your typical MO.
I’m concerned about the damage it would do to our children Greg, and I’ve explained this to you before.
What damage?
Are you suggesting that there would be damage if same-sex couples were granted marriage, but not if they were granted civil unions? That the choice of a term will actually harm someone?
More lunacy….
“Don’t take my word for things. Do your own research and satisfy yourself.
Read about Jefferson, his religious orientation, and the reasons for his letter to the Danbury Baptists….and how his ’separation’ metaphor has been twisted”
I have and this is what I’ve discovered.
There are two distinct camps with numerous examples exclaiming their views.
Both sides forcing their definition of what was meant .. as though they’d been there.
Almost like Christians trying to define the intent of the bible .. as though they’d been there.
Do you know how many translations there are/have been of the bible?
“Then take a look at Everson v.Board of Education (1947). Study Justice Hugo Black’s background and learn of his anti-Catholic bigotry and how the Everson, and subsequent rulings, had the effect of separating all things religious from civil government at all levels, in clear violation of the Constitution.
Monumental difference. ”
You act as though that particular seperation is a bad thing ..
let’s consider an alternative ..
perhaps it would be anti-atheist bigotry and ended up with a singular religous control over all civil government?
See, what most people fail to do is to consider the alternative.
Instead, they consider what has been done to detain theirr ability to live in a pseudo theocracy.
And as far as your studies ..
would you share your focus/concentrations and intent?
Just me, but Scopes had far more bearing on the seperation .. at least it put a very large foot in the door and preceded Everson by almost 2 decades.
The Constitution is a contract between the people and those that they entrust to govern the nation…the Law of the Land. Said contract has mechanisms for amendment, deliberately cumbersome procedures, and a high level of national acceptance before ratification.
Hugo Black did precisely what your hypothetical anti-atheist example worries about…he short-circuited the process. It should bring you no comfort because you happen to accept and approve of the outcome.
So far, history tells us that the Founders rendered to mankind a profound gift, a magnificent charter, a social order benefitting people of all races, creeds, and colors.
We owe them, our Founders, the decency and courage not to squander a legacy of liberty never before experienced by our species.
EBF; “I’ve said many times that the best solution is for the state to grant all couples, both same- and opposite-sex, civil unions and leave “marriage” to religious institutions. Assuming you’re married, would you trade your civil marriage for a civil union? If not, why would you ask me to accept something you wouldn’t have?”
Thanks for the civil tone. We are not that far apart.
We got married by going to the Henn. Co. Gov. Ctr. the day after Christmas and asked if a judge was around. A bailiff was our witness. No church would marry us without months of “counseling.” That was over 30 years ago. We’ve never worn rings or shared the same last name. We’ve always been too poor, but our 3 children are college grads and more. We have never been closer, never been members of a church, always faithful believers in God.
Stereotypes don’t work. Insulting others hurts people with no good end. We can find a way to grow your loving relationship into our social fabric. But with all I’ve learned from 30+ years, the “marriage” identity needs to be strengthened, not weakened.
To me, it seems adding new identities and legal covenants protecting different relationships should be acceptable to you.
“The Constitution is a contract between the people and those that they entrust to govern the nation…the Law of the Land. Said contract has mechanisms for amendment, deliberately cumbersome procedures, and a high level of national acceptance before ratification.”
Yes, a contract between ALL the people without prejudice.
“Hugo Black did precisely what your hypothetical anti-atheist example worries about…he short-circuited the process. It should bring you no comfort because you happen to accept and approve of the outcome.
So far, history tells us that the Founders rendered to mankind a profound gift, a magnificent charter, a social order benefitting people of all races, creeds, and colors.”
Perhaps Black illustrated a large ‘gap’ in our consitution regarding the very things that were to be preserved?
There is NOTHING that stops a single elected official from saying a prayer or using alternative reference (such as a bible?), before conducting their duties .. NOTHING stops them from doing that.
But should a Bible or Koran be used to drive our government?
Again, that was not intended in the consititution was it?
“We owe them, our Founders, the decency and courage not to squander a legacy of liberty never before experienced by our species.”
Correct, and we should take all steps to insure that any attempt to link us as a theocracy would be …
short circuited?
I didn’t know anything about Tony Kushner until I went with my wife and friends to the Guthrie to see Caroline or Change a couple months back.
I thought is was a fantastic play, even though I’m normally kind of averse to musicals.
Homeosexuality or Catholicism weren’t covered as subject matters in that one. Seems like Katherine would like to paint kind of a one-dimensional protrait of the artist. I’ll try to find the interview in the Nation she mentions so I can get Kushner’s remarks in context. Sounds like he hyperventialted a bit. I can’t imagine Pope J.P.II pistol-whippping anyone.
Right now my chief complaint about the Guthrie is their choice of exterior architecture. They sure can stage a world-class performance though.
‘’sparked controversy for drawing rather blunt parallels between Adolf Hitler and Ronald Reagan,’’
In reality, there’s more parallels between Adolf Hitler and Barack Obama than Hitler and Reagan!
To me, it seems adding new identities and legal covenants protecting different relationships should be acceptable to you.
Well, you’re not me, so you don’t get to decide what I find acceptable and what I don’t. I notice that you did not answer the question of whether you would trade in your marriage for the civil union you think I should accept.
I do not believe in “separate but equal.” It didn’t work for blacks, and it won’t work for gays. This has already been proven in New Jersey.
Why should we create “new identities and legal covenants” when we have an institution — marriage — that already has all of the protections we seek? A new institution would unnecessarily add to and complicate the existing patchwork of laws that govern legal relationships.
Civil unions would certainly be better than nothing, but at best I see them as a stepping stone to marriage. Because in the end, civil unions will not be treated as marriages are. They weren’t in New Jersey, despite the intent that they would be, and they won’t be elsewhere.
Even in California, where domestic partnerships are supposedly “equal to marriage,” they aren’t really equal. For example, you have to share a domicile before you can enter a domestic partnership; such a requirement does not exist for a marriage.
Civil unions would be open to lawmakers making “exceptions” that would render them not equal to marriage. In fact, no state that offers civil unions can claim that those civil unions are equal to marriage. Some come close, but coming close is not equal.
We got married by going to the Henn. Co. Gov. Ctr…
And isn’t it wonderful that you were able to marry on your terms? Hubby and I were married by a clerk in Canada. Religion was pointedly absent. We do wear rings, but neither of us changed our name. We too have grown closer over the years.
The point is that despite the details of any couple’s marriage, all couples get the same package of benefits, rights, privileges and responsibilities from the state (assuming that the state will recognize the marriage, that is). That’s all we want — the same package that you got. For reasons already stated, that package includes the term “civil marriage” unless all existing civil marriages will be converted to civil unions.
We can find a way to grow your loving relationship into our social fabric.
Excuse me, but my marriage, and the thousands of other same-sex marriages across the country, are already part of the social fabric. Same-sex couples are here to stay; we aren’t going away, whether or not the government recognizes our relationships.
But with all I’ve learned from 30+ years, the “marriage” identity needs to be strengthened, not weakened.
You heterosexuals aren’t doing such a good job with that. I’m sure you don’t need a list of examples.
But why would same-sex marriage weaken, rather than strengthen, the institution? You have offered no argument or evidence that it would.
On the other hand, I can tell you why same-sex marriage would strengthen the institution and provide more stability to society:
• Marriage encourages monogamy and would reduce the rate of sexually transmitted diseases
• Children raised by same-sex couples would have legal protections if their parents split up or one of their parents died
• The right to marry would help gay men and lesbians feel more included by society and would likely lead to greater productivity and more willingness to contribute to their communities
• The federal government and state governments would probably collect more tax dollars – maybe enough so the tax rate could be lowered for couples already married (i.e., opposite-sex couples)
• Same-sex couples, many of whom have high dual incomes, would pump billions of dollars (literally) into the wedding industry and economy
• Fewer straight people would be hurt by their spouses come out of the closet – and the divorce rate might drop
• Protecting same-sex couples from the adverse tax consequences associated with death and inheritance makes it more likely for the surviving partner to be financially independent instead of relying on tax dollars for support
• Same-sex couples often adopt special needs children, and marriage might encourage more to consider adopting (which would relieve taxpayers of the burden of providing for these children)
• Studies have shown that people in healthy marriages are generally healthier (mentally and physically) than single people; same-sex marriage could increase the percentage of healthy adults
• Many same-sex couples would become eligible to purchase company-subsidized (i.e., more affordable) health insurance coverage for their spouses and children, potentially reducing the number of uninsured adults and children
• Productive citizens would not leave the country for the reason of marriage discrimination (it doesn’t happen much, but we have lost citizens for this reason – especially if a US citizen is partnered to a foreign national)
• Foreign same-sex couples with marketable skills would consider immigration to the United States
• A sizeable population could stop focusing on marriage and start focusing on all of the other problems we face in today’s world (banning same-sex marriage would not accomplish this)
I need to get going on my day here, but I’ll close this post by recommending that you read the Iowa Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in Iowa. It is an excellent opinion and addresses many of the concerns of opponents of marriage equality. www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20090403/07-1499.pdf
“In reality, there’s more parallels between Adolf Hitler and Barack Obama than Hitler and Reagan!”
Name 1.
“Right now my chief complaint about the Guthrie is their choice of exterior architecture.”
Exterior? How about interior? The most non functional theatre Ive ever been in. Dark, cramped, hard to get in and out of and mover through. A stupid design on all accounts. For example to get from one side of the theatre to the other, you have to walk THROUGH the restaurant. S T U P I D.
Homeosexuality
Interesting typo.
Given the definition of homeo being “like; similar”, the word actually defines my marriage much better than “traditional”.
I married a Sicillian girl, so the “similar” in this case refers to body hair.
She has hair in places where monkeys don’t.
Still, I think the best solution to the issue is to stop using the term marriage altogether, and replace it with something more befitting of modern society.
I suggest “protodivorce”.
Had Kushner smeared a Muslim imam as a ‘’homicidal liar,’’ or compared Al Gore to Hitler, his writing career would likely be over.
But he would have a great career as a Right-wing writer or Fox host ahead of him.
“Exterior? How about interior?”
I’ve noticed that as a trend in the arts, where these creative-minded people in charge of getting a facility built are so willing to let it be an edifice to the architect’s visionary ego that they forget to make it practical to walk around in. The Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris is like that too.
One thing in the Guthrie’s defense is that there are bars all over the place in there. They got that aspect of design right. But in general I think the building is ugly in and out. They seemed to be having a rivalry with the Walker to see who could have the biggest cantilever.
Hi, all,
I’ve still alive, but very busy — re-siding my back porch (got to get out and get the Tyvek on today), trying to negotiate a new mortgage, and welcoming three new neighbors to the block club.
This discussion is pretty interesting, given that I’m a Catholic and a former theater major at the U of M. However, since I don’t know Kushner or his work, I’m not going to say a word about it until I know more.
One playwright I am very familiar with is Bertolt Brecht, and I do appreciate Jester’s comment that “To fully understand an artist–or, for that matter, anyone, we must take into account their entire body of work.” Brecht’s career spanned nearly 40 years, and his output extends in tone from Baal (1919) and the “in-your-face” Dreigroschenoper (Threepenny Opera, 1928) to the pleasant and lyrical Der Kaukasische Kreidehreis (The Caucasian Chalk Circle, 1944). I’m especially fond of that play because I saw it at the Guthrie in 1965, and translated it between 1968 and 2002 (hey, I’m slow sometimes) because I thought - with the arrogance of youth - that I could do better than Bentley. I think I did, but the Brecht estate won’t allow me to use my work in any way unless I sign the copyright over to them and their agents, which of course I’m not going to do.
One thing I especially like in Brecht is that he appeals to those things of the mind and heart that are common to all humanity. Now again, to return to the point: I don’t know Kushner, but can one say the same of him and his work? This is an honest question.
How about that long narrow bar on the 2nd floor in the back? The one where the ceiling is about 8 feet high and the rooom is about 100ft long and 10 ft wide? The whole room is like a narrow tube with the bar all the way at the back. I love architecture but it has to be some what functional.
Hi again, all,
One more comment: the older I get the more I see that there are so few things in this world really worth making a fuss about. On a gut level (not at all the same as intellectual curiosity), who is Kushner that - besides our common humanity - I should be intensely interested in him? Same goes for Michael Jackson.
“How about that long narrow bar on the 2nd floor in the back?”
It’s actually a psych experiment. Theyr’e trying to see how many claustrophobes and acid trippers they can get to lose their composure.
Oh, and bathroom design: If you are building a public facility proximate to the Metrodome, you shouldn’t make your sinks in the Men’s restroom resemble the trough-style urinals at the Metrodome. I almost peed in the sink at the Guthrie before I saw the actual urinals out of the corner of my eye.
FC, I don’t know if Kushner will stand the test of time to the same degree as Brecht, however I think he’s a great playwright in our time. You’d do okay to check him out.
BTW I think good ol’fashioned tarpaper — assuming you’ve overlapped it right — beats Tyvek but that’s just my opinon. Good luck with your siding work. I wish I was working outside today too.
So if you google “Tony kushner Matthew Shpeard you can find the opinion pice by Kushner in 1998 that Katherine is still holding her grudge about. I’m afraid it’s a bit wordy:
Here is Kushner’s remark about the Pope in its original context:
A lot of people worry these days about the death of civil discourse. The Pope, in his new encyclical, Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason), laments the death of civil discourse and cites “ancient philosophers who proposed friendship as one of the most appropriate contexts for sound philosophical inquiry.” It’s more than faintly ludicrous, this plea for friendship coming from the selfsame Pope who has tried so relentlessly to stamp out dissent in churches and Catholic universities, but let’s follow the lead of the crazies who killed Matthew Shepard and take the Pope at his word.
Friendship is the proper context for discussion. Fine and good. Take the gun away from the head, Your Holiness, and we can discuss the merits of homosexual sex, of homosexual marriage, of homosexual love, of monogamy versus promiscuity, of lesbian or gay couples raising kids, of condom distribution in the schools, of confidential counseling for teenagers, of sex education that addresses more than abstinence. We can discuss abortion, we can discuss anything you like. Just promise me two things, friend: First, you won’t beat my brains out with a pistol butt and leave me to die by the side of the road. Second, if someone else, someone a little less sane than you, feeling entitled to commit these terrible things against me because they understood you a little too literally, or were more willing than you to take your distaste for me and what I do to its most full-blooded conclusion, if someone else does violence against me, friend, won’t you please make it your business to make a big public fuss about how badly I was treated? Won’t you please make a point, friend, you who call yourself, and who are called, by millions of people, the Vicar on Earth of the very gentle Jesus, won’t you please in the name of friendship announce that no one who deliberately inflicts suffering, whether by violence or by prejudice, on another human being, can be said to be acting in God’s name? And announce it so that it is very clear that you include homosexuals when you refer to “human beings,” and announce it so that the world hears you, really hears you, so that your announcement makes the news, as you are capable of doing when it suits your purposes? Won’t you make this your purpose too? And if you won’t, if you won’t take responsibility for the consequences of your militant promotion of discrimination, won’t you excuse me if I think you are not a friend at all but rather a homicidal liar whose claim to spiritual and moral leadership is fatally compromised, is worth nothing more than…well, worth nothing more than the disgusting, opportunistic leadership of Trent Lott.
I guess I don’t buy his contention that the Pope teaching Homosexuality is a sin, and failing to denounce Matthew Shepard’s murder publicly enough, somewhow makes him culpable for hat e crimes against gays. However, I’m not entirely sure Kushner’s opinion here marks him as a Catholic-hater, either.
To me the critical flaw in Kushner’s reasoning is at any given time there are thousands of brutal things being done all over the world. If the Pope took the time to publicly denounce every single one of them he wouldn’t have time to eat sleep and poop.
dubble_a_ron, thanks for the Kushner quote.
I believe I did say earlier that “context matters.” This quote is further proof, as it emasculates the claim of anti-Catholicism that Katherine made by quoting a small bit out of context.
But we should all know by now that Katherine is a master of smoke and mirrors, omission and innuendo. One would think she’d realize by now that we’re on to her.
“But these Philistines are sure to be overlooked when the invitation lists for next season’s best Kenwood parties are drawn up”
Also those Philistines who can’t tell what a fancy sink is, and pee in it.
Hi, all,
d_a_r, thanks for the quote. I will take it that it’s accurate. On that basis, I simply cannot agree with EBF that the quote is not anti-Catholic, because my opinion is that it is. Or, at the very least, Kushner is woefully deficient in both his knowledge of Catholicism, and good manners. If anyone wants me to pick the speech apart point by point, I will — later. (I did get the tyvek up, and my feet and back hurt plenty.)
Me; “To me, it seems adding new identities and legal covenants protecting different relationships should be acceptable to you.”
EBF; “Well, you’re not me, so you don’t get to decide what I find acceptable and what I don’t. I notice that you did not answer the question of whether you would trade in your marriage for the civil union you think I should accept.”
Yes, I did answer. A marriage incorporates the legal covenant of a civil union within the marriage. The homosexual community has rejected this proposition. Instead, the homosexual community seeks to undefine marriage.
Words matter. Red should not be equated with blue. You use plenty of words attempting to make your point. We should easily agree that hetero and homo sexuality are different. Marriage is a heterosexual civil union. You refuse to accept a homosexual civil union. And you intend to decide for me that I equate red with blue.
And yes, the homosexual community does have time and money to push their agenda. In our family, many things were set aside to raise 3 children to adulthood. And clearly, families raising children MUST be differentiated and given an extra measure of security. You probably can’t understand how parents no longer live for themselves, they live for their children. Too many families fail, while too many Tony Kushners write plays.
I have my own thoughts about Kushner’s polemic from the “Passion to Matthew Shepard.” Like I said, google it, it’s out there. My take on Kushner is somewhere between Katherine’s and EBF’s.
My thoughts will have to wait until I’ve done some work today, though. Stay tuned.
Congratulations, FC on getting your Tyvek up before the rain came.
And clearly, families raising children MUST be differentiated and given an extra measure of security.
So you’re saying my heterosexual marriage sans children should be redefined as a civil union? An “extra level of security” is defined how? Compared to what?
Hi, all,
d_a_r, thanks for the kind words. I didn’t bother to do the cutouts, so I can’t get at the back door — but the back porch, such as it is (4′ x 5′) is weathertight. My back hurts — but the porch is weathertight. My folks taught me when I was a kid that nothing worthwhile comes easy. I’m glad I listened to them.
PS — the reason it’s raining today is that I watered the garden yesterday. I admit it! — it’s all my fault. But if I had watered the garden to make it rain, it wouldn’t have. Thus sayeth Murphy.
Downtown Dan, word permutations can get cumbersome. So you’re saying “get word, Downtown Dan?”
Read my post. I didn’t redefine or newly define anything.
And a good many allowances are already supportive of children in our society. From welfare to schools. Nothing new.
EBF, as always you have wonderful insight on the same sex marriage issue.
I always think that same sex marriage opponents have done more to harm marriage. They have had to whittle down their definition of marriage down to “between a man and a woman” that love has dropped out of the definition. Love between two people no longer seems to be the most important reason for marriage anymore. Maybe this is what Carrie Prejean meant by “opposite marriage”.
I don’t her the same sex marriage opponents boycotting ABC due to showing “The Bachelor / Bachelorette” where marriage is reduced to a games show. But, Miley Cyrus supporting same sex marriage…boycott her.
“Love between two people no longer seems to be the most important reason for marriage anymore.”
Whats looooove got to do, got to do with it?
Since when has love been the most important reason for marriage?
Deacon Blue…maybe we should use the Ike and Tina definition of marriage.
But, Miley Cyrus supporting same sex marriage…boycott her
Excellent. I’m so tired of seeing her overexposed face everywhere I turn.
I won’t be able to see it if some lesbian is sitting on it.
I couldn’t pick Miley Cyrus out of a lineup.
Also, since I alway seem to have some oblivious to the world a-hole standing in my way, blankly staring into a cell phone display, I would have taken great pleasure at witnessing this.
Teen Girl Falls In Open Manhole While Texting
Alexa Longueira Suffers Deep Cuts, Bruises After Landing In Raw Sewage,
Blames DEP For Leaving Hole Unattended
It was an accident waiting to happen — an open sewer and a 15-year-old girl who was texting while she walked.
Alexa Longueira, a high school sophomore, was walking along Victory Boulevard near Travis Avenue on Staten Island Wednesday evening when she felt the earth move and was plunged into smelly darkness.
She said the manhole she fell in to was left open and unattended with no warning signs or orange cones. She said two workers with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection failed to secure the area as they prepared to flush the sewer.
“It was just really gross and it was shocking and scary,” she said. “Because of their careless mistake I got hurt.”
Longueira has deep cuts and bruises and said she now has nightmares about falling, But she also did admit she was texting at the time.
“maybe we should use the Ike and Tina definition of marriage.”
That wasnt an Ike and Tina song. But my point is people have been getting married and do get married for reasons other than love. More often than not for reasons other than love it appears to me when you look at all the failed marriages out there.
So here is my issue with the “Passion of Matthew” piece by Kushner.
It’s way too much like Katherine Kersten’s writing for me to be comfortable with it.
By that I mean to say that it’s full of false dichotomies, guilt by association and strawman arguments. Kushner seems to see anyone who doesn’t approve of his lifestyle (not just the Pope, but all those anti-gay Protestants, too, and the whole Republican Party) as one big monolithic slab of unified cohesive opposition to his very existence. All are somehow in on the horrifc death of Matthew Shepard. If they didn’t make a point of publicly condemning the atrocity, it must be because they are afraid it will undermine their political position, or worse because they don’t have a problem with violence against gays. The louts who tortured and killed Shepard must certainly be influenced if not outright inspired to violence by the Pope’s teachings, in Kushner’s estimation, simply because the Pope comes out as saying gay sex is a sin. Kushner fails to explain how the Pope’s perennial insistence that his flock refrain from buggery somehow is causally connected to any subsequent violence that befalls a gay person. Anyone who doesn’t believe in federal anti-hate-crimes legislation is presumed to be complacent in the face of violence against gays. There can be no compromise.
It’s uncannily similar to G.W. Bush’s “you’re either with us of against us” speech. A melodramtic “pick a side” stand against a false dichotomy in the emotional aftermath of something really awful that some individuals did to another.
It’s also good to remember that it’s a playwright composing the rhetoric because one can’t help but suspect he imagined actors saying it on stage as he wrote it. The way he keeps coming back to the word “friend” in his hypothetical dialog with the Pope is reminiscent of Cassius’ Speech in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, where Cassius keeps saying “Brutus is an honorable man” with escalating degrees of sarcasm until the crowd is ready to lynch Brutus.
The truth is though, most of us don’t want our political discourse to be as overblown and melodramatic as dialog on stage.
So EBF, I don’t think the full text of Kushner’s article exonerates him exactly but I don’t think it exactly pegs him as an anti-Catholic either. Katherine definitely applied some distorion by taking two-word phrases of it of context. It’s more like he’s haranguing society itself (not unlike the way Katherine does) and the Pope just happens to be singled out in passing.
I’m a little puzzled why Katherine is holding such a grudge against the guy for this rant he went on ten years ago.
Perhaps it’s because she buys into the same false dichotmy of gays vs religious straights and she sees herself as on the other side of this all-or-nothing schism (recall her recent breathless expose on the Gay Mafia). Kushner and Kersten alike may be perturbed that most of us just shrug and say, “eh, live and let live”.
Maybe she belongs to some members-only website called “The Pope’s sh!tlist” out there that lists all the people who have ever said anything nasty about the Pope. It generates emails to subscribers whenver someone on the sh!tlist makes the news.
That would explain it.
“I couldn’t pick Miley Cyrus out of a lineup”
Here’s todays ray of hope….!!!
A marriage incorporates the legal covenant of a civil union within the marriage.
“Legal covenant of a civil union within the marriage?” Sorry, but that’s gobbledygook for three reasons. First, the state doesn’t issue civil union licenses to anyone; it issues marriage licenses. From the standpoint of the state, a marriage is a civil contract. There need not be any religious component. Second, precisely because no religious component is required for state recognition of a civil marriage, atheists with a marriage license are considered as married as any religious couple with a marriage license. And third, because religious institutions can (and some do) bestow their sacrament of marriage on same-sex couples if they wish, even if the state will not recognize the union, a marriage in this case has no legal component.
Now, the question I asked you about trading in your marriage for a civil union was meant to have no religious component. It spoke only of a civil institution, to that little state-issued piece of paper known as a “marriage license.” Would you trade in your state-issued marriage license for a state-issued civil union license? Leave the religious component out of it, because it’s irrelevant.
The homosexual community has rejected this proposition. Instead, the homosexual community seeks to undefine marriage.
“Undefine” marriage? That’s a new one. No, the GLBT community simply wants to expand the legal definition of civil marriage to include same-sex couples, much in the same way that the legal definition of civil marriage was expanded in mid 20th-century America to include interracial couples.
The problem you and I are having is that you insist that “marriage” is always a legal and religious construct, whereas I make a distinction between civil and religious marriage. I do not wish to force any religious institution to marry any couple it does not wish to. I fully support the right of any religious institution to deny its sacrament of marriage to any couple it wishes, for any reason it wishes – a right that all religious institutions have today. But when it comes to the state, to civil marriage, I insist that same-sex couples be treated identically to opposite-sex couples.
Words matter.
Yes and no. When I tell people I’m married to a man, or when I introduce Hubby as my husband, everyone seems to understand the nature of our relationship. “Marriage,” in its broadest sense, means simply “union.” Not “the union of one man and one woman.” Simply “union.” Visit dictionary.com and look up “marriage;” you’ll see the word used in a variety of ways, some of which don’t even involve animate objects.
I argue that it is legal definitions that really matter. A legal definition that unfairly discriminates against citizens is problematic.
We should easily agree that hetero and homo sexuality are different.
We should easily agree that many things are different: black and white skin colors, red and brown hair colors, left-handed and right-handed, Mexicans and Chinese, English speakers and Swahili speakers…. I could go on, but you get the point. Is sexuality the only trait that defines a person? Is sexuality even the most important part of a person — or a marriage?
Marriage is a heterosexual civil union.
Oftentimes. But not exclusively.
You refuse to accept a homosexual civil union.
Not true. I would accept civil unions. But there are conditions to that acceptance, which I’ve already stated. “Separate but equal” will not suffice.
And you intend to decide for me that I equate red with blue.
Nice try, but I’m on to oppressors twisting things around to make themselves appear to be victims. I’ve made no decision for you. You, on the other hand, seem to think that you can decide for me that I cannot marry the man I love and that I should have to accept something that is, at best, separate but equal.
And yes, the homosexual community does have time and money to push their agenda.
And the religious right doesn’t? Right-wing organizations outspend GLBT organizations ten to one. Easily. Given the infuriating, hateful rhetoric these religious institutions spew, you’ve got a lot of nerve trying to lecture me about anyone’s “agenda.”
And clearly, families raising children MUST be differentiated and given an extra measure of security.
You are aware that many same-sex couples are raising children, aren’t you? So are you trying to differentiate those raising children from the childless? Or do you ignorantly “reason” that since same-sex couples can’t reproduce, they cannot be raising children? What about all of the childless heterosexual couples who get all of the rights, benefits, privileges and responsibilities of civil marriage? They’re really not any different from childless same-sex couples.
You probably can’t understand how parents no longer live for themselves, they live for their children.
Why do you think I can’t understand that? One need not have children to understand this sentiment. Again I ask about the children being raised by same-sex couples; don’t those children deserve the protection civil marriages would bring to the couples raising them? Since you care so much about children, you should be demanding that any same-sex couple raising children be married!
I can’t understand why straight people should have a problem with gay people marrying.
I don’t get it.
I’ve tried to listen to the arguments about one man one woman whatever but I don’t get why it has to be that way.
Defense of marriage?
How does preventing loving people from getting married defend marriage?
I don’t get it.
I remember a friend of mine who works in the ad biz, said that the term “marriage” was used to refer to a copywriter and a graphic designer who could make kick@ss ads together.
Or in the world of antique furniture, a marriage is components of two different original pieces put together, like the top of one table on the legs of another. Put together, the marriage of parts equals a new whole. So may it be with partnerships of people. I don’t see why gender asymmetry has to be achieved.
“A marriage incorporates the legal covenant of a civil union within the marriage.”
A cattipillar incorporates the natural covenant of a rebirth union within the larve (not Brett Larve) and the butterfly that by any other means can be turned politaclly upside down in the best preconditions of financial compensation towards a loved one.
“I couldn’t pick Miley Cyrus out of a lineup”
Can you pick your dingles barry from the lime lite.
Downtown Dan, word permutations can get cumbersome.
Pot. Kettle.
Danny baby, get your sweat shirts back out of the closet?
What does that even mean?
Think Global Warming Dan. It’ll come to you in a minute, provided your not stoned right now.
provided your not stoned right now.
I’m starting to get the impression you’re really jonesin’ for a connection.
“you’re really jonesin’”
Im on the wagon.
“Danny baby, get your sweat shirts back out of the closet?”
It’s cold out tonight
And the feeling just got right for a brand new climate song
Somebody done the climate wrong song
Hey, won’t you play another
Somebody done the climate wrong song
And make me feel at home
While I idle in traffic, while I idle in traffic
So please, play for me a sad melody
So sad that it makes everybody cry
A real hurtin’ song about a climate tha’s gone wrong
‘Cause I don’t wanna cry all alone
Hey, won’t you play another
Somebody done the climate wrong song
And make me feel at home
While I light my woodstove, While I light my woodstove
So please, play for me a sad melody
So sad that it makes everybody cry
A real hurtin’ song about a climate tha’s gone wrong
‘Cause I don’t wanna cry all alone
Hey, won’t you play another
Somebody done the climate wrong song
And make me feel at home
While I burn my trash, while I burn my trash
Hey, won’t you play another
Somebody done the climate wrong song
And make me feel at home
While I buy carbon credits, while I buy carbon credits
Im on the wagon.
Having kids will do that to you.
And just when you probably need it the most.
I just saw the movie Hurt Locker. I thought it was quite good. It takes a look into the tough decisions that soldiers in Iraq have to make; namely, “Do I shoot now and answer questions later, or do I hold my fire and possibly never be able to answer questions again?” Anyways, I thought it was a good movie if anyone is planning on checking it out.
What happened, the Harry Potter movie sold out?
Or did you have a date? :P
good morning fellow somali jihadists, frankenites and other strange creatures. funny how corn holed libs are given carte blanche regarding hate speech. its not their fault. their “victims” and all.
anyways, im sure thats old news by now. ill have to drop back in when i have more time.
“I just saw the movie Hurt Locker.”
Trying to change your image eh? Too late.
Seriously DJ, I’ll give it a look.
It’s always chaffed my pe
“It’s always chaffed my pe”
Should be
It’s always chaffed my pekker that the lawyers are running the war at such a micro-level.
good morning fellow …
Look children, it’s a hipocritious Republicnas, a rare and dying breed of political species known for loudly accusing others of their own short comings. Don’t make any sudden movements, they scare easily.
D.T.
The soci@lists will be trying to take Michele Bachmann’s seat in the next election with Tarell Clark, but they will have the economy so screwed up by then that they will be very lucky to stay in office, let alone remove a common sense conservative.
hi dan, been awhile. i trust all is wonderful up there in north somalia. and even though i count you as one of my dearest friends, i have to point out you have me all wrong.
its only due to my sheer brilliance, good looks and dazzling personality , thqt i dont get frustrated when both the robber barons and you trotskites hurl insults my way and accuse me of being in the others camp.
not to worry though dan, i still love you. although i must warn you, im a member of LIWMP. Lesbians Inside With Manly Privates. yes im a lesbian. i will never be able to reciprocate your affections.
d2, good to read you, still fighting the good fight i see. good job
What happened, the Harry Potter movie sold out?
Funny story about that which will further hurt my drowning image. Ever since high school, I have gone to see every new HP movie with two of my friends who are also HP fans. Unfortunately, one of those friends is in Scotland right now playing a ridiculous amount of golf, so we’re going to wait a week until he gets back. Plus, it’s better that way because the theater isn’t so packed with other nerds.
Or did you have a date? :P
I went with 2 of my brothers and 1 of my sisters.
good morning fellow somali jihadists, frankenites and other strange creatures.
This comment doesn’t even make sense. Who on here is a Somali jihadist?
Trying to change your image eh? Too late.
No, I’ve learned that it’s much more fun to embrace an image for the sake of the bit rather than try to change it. Blogs have long memories. It’s kind of like 1:30 into this video clip. WARNING: Don’t watch it at work or around kids. Lots of foul language.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNib30GghKw
Heard a new word that I was unfamiliar with today. Reprobate. My favorite definition is “foreordained to damnation”.
What happened, the Harry Potter movie sold out?
Funny story about that which will further hurt my drowning image. Ever since high school, I have gone to see every new HP movie with two of my friends who are also HP fans. Unfortunately, one of those friends is in Scotland right now playing a ridiculous amount of golf, so we’re going to wait a week until he gets back. Plus, it’s better that way because the theater isn’t so packed with other nerds.
Or did you have a date? :P
I went with 2 of my brothers and 1 of my sisters.
good morning fellow somali jihadists, frankenites and other strange creatures.
This comment doesn’t even make sense. Who on here is a Somali jihadist?
Trying to change your image eh? Too late.
No, I’ve learned that it’s much more fun to embrace an image for the sake of the bit rather than try to change it. Blogs have long memories. It’s kind of like 1:30 into this video clip. WARNING: Don’t watch it at work or around kids. Lots of foul language.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNib30GghKw
Heard a new word that I was unfamiliar with today. Reprobate. My favorite definition is “foreordained to damnation”.
“This comment doesn’t even make sense. Who on here is a Somali jihadist?”
your not just trying to cover something up, are you, dj ??
“The soci@lists will be trying to take Michele Bachmann’s seat in the next election with Tarell Clark, but they will have the economy so screwed up by then that they will be very lucky to stay in office, let alone remove a common sense conservative.”
Who is the common sense conservative?
“This comment doesn’t even make sense. Who on here is a Somali jihadist?”
Dan is the Somali and D2 is the Jihadist.
your not just trying to cover something up, are you, dj ??
Oooohhh… how clever. Wait, I can come back with the same lame comeback. Are you sure that “your” not just trying to deflect criticism since you were the one who came up with the stupid accusation, Lesbian Steve?
“Oooohhh… how clever. Wait, I can come back with the same lame comeback. Are you sure that “your” not just trying to deflect criticism since you were the one who came up with the stupid accusation, Lesbian Steve? ”
I hate to say this DJ, but I’m a lesbian trapped in a dude’s body ..
I love women .. I’ll admit it ..
“I can come back with the same lame comeback. Are you sure that “your” not just trying to deflect criticism since you were the one who came up with the stupid accusation, Lesbian Steve? ”
thats it dj, im going to have to convene my cabal of extremist right wing lesbians to spy on all your intercontinental and international communications
thats it dj, im going to have to convene my cabal of extremist right wing lesbians to spy on all your intercontinental and international communications
Neat.
“I hate to say this DJ, but I’m a lesbian trapped in a dude’s body ..”
its an international conspiracy dj, and a civil rights org
“thats it dj, im going to have to convene my cabal of extremist right wing lesbians to spy on all your intercontinental and international communications ”
Death by Cheneyist ..
“its an international conspiracy dj, and a civil rights org ”
however, it’s only members have chick bodies .. they are lesbians trapped in a chick body.
Man lesbians aren’t admitted into the club. Thus making the civil rights org rather ..
unique?
When you put Dan and D2 together you get ..
Jihomali ..
Which is kinda like jumbalya but different
“Man lesbians aren’t admitted into the club. Thus making the civil rights org rather .”
i have a dream, that one day a dude/chick wont be judged by his/her body privates and lack of chick bodies but by the content of his/her brassiere
I hate to say this DJ, but I’m a lesbian trapped in a dude’s body ..
As I have told D2, that translates into,
“do me with the big strap-on. No, I said the BIIIIG one”
““do me with the big strap-on. No, I said the BIIIIG one”
I’m not that kind of lesbiman ..
I respect my man body and know that I’m built as an exit only.
As I have told D2, that translates into,
“do me with the big strap-on. No, I said the BIIIIG one”
thats incredibly intolerant you insentive clod. males lesbians are always striclty hetero.
just wait until we get all our hate speech legislation passed, and you might find yourself spending some time behind bars
“and you might find yourself spending some time behind bars ”
… see where those chick flicks get you then young man!
… see where those chick flicks get you then young man!
Wrong person. See where those bongs get you then old man!
:)
By the way, if anyone figures out why Hurt Locker is called Hurt Locker, let me know. I can’t figure it out…
“Wrong person. See where those bongs get you then old man!
:)”
You say that like it’s a bad thing?
Locker = brain = emotions
Locker = brain = emotions
That doesn’t really make much sense in terms of the movie.
“That doesn’t really make much sense in terms of the movie. ”
I havent seen it but locker is normally associated with the melon and the stuf you stick in it that you don’t want out .. or to deal with ..
in this case taking life or losng yours.
That ccould bend the looker
“That ccould bend the looker”
Especially when taking one and losing yours depends on a f’ing lawyer.
Especially when taking one and losing yours depends on a f’ing lawyer.
Indeed.
“Especially when taking one and losing yours depends on a f’ing lawyer.”
which is why a good burn pit is vital.
Please leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Katherine Kersten writes a weekly column for the Star Tribune's Sunday Opinion Exchange section. The column covers a broad range of topics reflecting her experiences and interests.
In this blog, she will address many of the same issues, albeit in quicker, less formal fashion, along with pointing readers to other sources of interesting online commentary and coverage.
Subscribe to Katherine Kersten
Learn more about RSS
Books I Love
- Underdevelopment is a State of Mind - Lawrence E. Harrison
- The Schools We Need: Why We Don’t Have Them – E.D. Hirsch
- The Closing of the American Mind – Allan Bloom
- The Repeal of Reticence – Rochelle Gurstein
- Political Pilgrims – Paul Hollander
- The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism – Michael Novak
- A Conflict of Visions – Thomas Sowell
- Adam Bede – George Eliot
- The Brothers Karamazov – Fyodor Dostoevsky
- The Lord of the Rings -- J. R. R. Tolkein
Great Minnesota Blogs
Indispensible Think Tanks
Movies You Won't Forget
On Education
- Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
- Center for Education Reform
- Core Knowledge Foundation
- Intercollegiate Studies Institute
On Marriage and the Family
Sites You Shouldn't Miss
Categories
- 2008 GOP Convention (11)
- Abstinence (3)
- ACLU (3)
- ADA (1)
- Adoption (1)
- Adversary Culture (3)
- Affirmative Action (3)
- AIDS (2)
- Airlines (1)
- Airport Taxi Drivers (3)
- Al Franken (5)
- Al Gore (3)
- Al Sharpton (1)
- Amy Klobuchar (1)
- Animal Rights (3)
- Anti-Americans (1)
- art (1)
- Assisted Suicide (1)
- Athletics (1)
- Bikes (5)
- Bill Clinton (1)
- Bin Laden (1)
- Boy Scouts (1)
- Boys (2)
- Brainerd Lakes (1)
- Bridge (1)
- Bridge Collapse (8)
- British (1)
- Canada (1)
- Charter schools (1)
- Children (14)
- China (1)
- Chris Stewert (1)
- Christianity (8)
- Christmas (6)
- Cities (2)
- Clarence Thomas (1)
- Collectors (1)
- Colleges (24)
- Congress (2)
- Conservatism (8)
- Constitution (5)
- Contraception (1)
- Courts (9)
- Courtship (1)
- Crime (12)
- Critical Mass (2)
- Culture Wars (6)
- Cyberspace (1)
- Darwin (1)
- Dating (2)
- Dawkins (1)
- Death (2)
- Death Penalty (2)
- Delta Queen (2)
- Discrimination (8)
- Disneyland (1)
- Diversity (9)
- Divorce (2)
- Don Samuels (1)
- Drugs (5)
- Economics (10)
- Education (32)
- Emperor has no clothes (1)
- Energy Policy (1)
- Environmental Issues (11)
- Ethanol (2)
- Eugenics (1)
- Europe (8)
- Evil (1)
- Experts (1)
- Falwell (1)
- Fathers (4)
- Feminists (3)
- First Minnesota Volunteers (1)
- Flying Imams (12)
- Francis of Assisi (1)
- Free Speech (2)
- free will (1)
- Gambling (1)
- Garrison Keillor (2)
- Gas Prices (1)
- Gay Issues (4)
- Gay Marriage (8)
- George Washington (1)
- Germany (1)
- Global Warming (11)
- government gone wild (2)
- Happiness (4)
- Hate Crimes (3)
- Health Care (10)
- Hillary Clinton (2)
- Home Schooling (2)
- Huck Finn (1)
- Indomitable Human Spirit (6)
- Intellectual Freedom (1)
- Iran (1)
- Iraq (22)
- Islam (3)
- James Lileks (1)
- Jane Fonda (1)
- Joe Lieberman (2)
- John Edwards (1)
- John Kerry (2)
- John McCain (2)
- John Wesley Powell (1)
- Journalists (2)
- Keith Ellison (5)
- Larry Craig (1)
- law enforcement (3)
- Lawyers (3)
- Legislature (5)
- Lori Swanson (1)
- Love (2)
- Main (560)
- Manhood (3)
- Mark Ritchie (1)
- Marriage (14)
- Media (9)
- medical ethics (1)
- Melancholia (1)
- Michael Moore (1)
- Michael Vick (1)
- Michelle Bachmann (2)
- Mike Hatch (2)
- Military (19)
- Mitt Romney (1)
- Monster Houses (1)
- Morality (12)
- Mortgage Crises (2)
- Mother Teresa (1)
- Movies (3)
- Multiculturalism (4)
- Museums (1)
- Music (1)
- Muslims (17)
- Nancy Pelosi (1)
- Navy SEALs (1)
- New Orleans (1)
- Norm Coleman (3)
- Norman Borlaug (1)
- North Korea (1)
- Novels (1)
- Obama (10)
- Oberstar (2)
- Olympics (1)
- Outward Bound (1)
- Overcoming (1)
- Parenting (10)
- Peter Singer (2)
- Peter Swanson (1)
- Political Correctness (3)
- Political Pilgrims (1)
- Politics (68)
- Popular Entertainment (3)
- Pornography (3)
- Poverty (5)
- Princess Diana (1)
- Prostitution (1)
- psychology (1)
- Race (16)
- Rachel Paulose (2)
- Radical Islam (3)
- Rap Music (3)
- Religion (21)
- Rights Talk (7)
- ROTC (1)
- Salvation Army (1)
- Sara Jane Olson (1)
- Sarah Palin (4)
- Science (15)
- Self Esteem (2)
- Sexual Infidelity (1)
- Sexuality (16)
- Single Parents (1)
- Sixties (1)
- Skewering the Author (4)
- Slavery (1)
- Smoking (2)
- Social Security (1)
- Solzhenitsyn (1)
- Somalis (2)
- Sports (1)
- Statistics (1)
- STDs (1)
- Stem Cells (2)
- Suicide (1)
- Sustainability (1)
- Sweden (1)
- Tatoos (1)
- Taxes (6)
- Terrorism (6)
- There for Another (8)
- Think Again Readers (5)
- Thomas More (2)
- Tim Pawlenty (6)
- TIZA (6)
- Tobacco (1)
- Transgender (1)
- University of MN (2)
- Ventura (2)
- Video games (2)
- Vietnam (5)
- Violence and the Media (1)
- Virtues and Values (9)
- Voting (3)
- Wal-Mart (1)
- Wealth and Poverty (6)
- Welfare (4)
- Western Culture (1)
- Woodstock (1)
- World War II (2)
- Young People (18)
Archives
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006