I wonder this same thing when I read the boys at the Corner. (I’m swerving off topic here.) Does Stanley Kurtz really think that the Canadian gay community “hid” internal disagreements about marriage (whether gay marriage is a desirable goal, or whether queer folks - and others - should challenge the institution of marriage altogether)? This week, Kurtz wrote that gays obscured their real feelings about marriage (uh, that we disagree about it) “for tactical reasons,” but now that gay Canadians have won the right to marry, their real anti-family agenda is revealed. (I’m not sure how “disagreements within the community about marriage” = “anti-family agenda,” but there you go.) Is he a friggin’ idiot, or is he deceitful?

The Kurtz posting reeks to me of obsessive interest in other peoples private lives, and perhaps some displaced envy over others’ ability to choose whether or not to commit. But at any rate, I can’t figure out which “gay tactic” is supposed to be “anti-family.” (that is, marrying or not marrying). As a heterosexual mother of two daughters who have yet to declare their sexual orientation (being four and six and still, apparently, in love with daddy) I’d think the “pro-family” approach is to worry about the vast numbers of individuals of all sexual orientations who seem to have a hard time settling down with one mate, not to worry about the partners they are choosing. But Kurtz, of course, is not “pro-family” (whatever that means) he’s just anti-someone else.–aimai

reminds me of phyllis schafly.

Y’know, that’s one of the most damning things I’ve seen Amp say about the conservative movement. Probably true, too.

Oh, and there’s a baseball team called the Marlins?! Who knew?