Thanks for weighing in, guys. I guess my hesitation about making the decision public comes from a few factors, and if anyone would like to help me tease them out it would be appreciated:
1. Am I being disingenuous? I was already hemming and hawing about going this time. It's not like I'd already agreed to provide coverage and am making a strong stand- a tangible sacrifice- through this decision. I'm having trouble imagining myself crafting a post that doesn't honestly reflect my prior, apolitical reservations about attending. That's just not in my nature, but it might blunt the effect of protest.
2. Am I small enough potatoes that I'm too easily dismissed? I haven't heard of any truly professional critics and bloggers deciding to forego Sundance in protest this year, yet, but I would hope to. Is my decision likely to sway any of them to join me? Or is it more likely, in the cynical, scoop-centric world of journalism, to make someone decide NOT to protest, because they wouldn't be the first to have thought of the idea?
3. Does such a decision really make a difference? And if so what kind? There are going to be hordes of press there one way or another- will my seat in the screening rooms just be filled by someone who couldn't care less about Prop. 8? Is that a good thing?
4. Given the above factors, is a public announcement going to be seen as nothing more than a ploy to drive traffic to my blog? I'm sure the answer is yes, in some eyes. Am I ready to handle the criticism?
The Marriage Debate
In 1967, the Omnibus Bill was passed in Canada, which brought homosexuality, abortion and the divorce law into the forefront. The Minister of Justice, Pierre Trudeau( later to become an adored as well as loathed Prime Minister) said, famously: "There is no place for the business of state in the bedrooms of this nation."
We were horrified that several States passed an anti-gay marriage bill, particularly in California.(Utah one can understand, Brian--they're very strange there anyway). Here, we believe that people who love one another and want to commit to them should marry, if they want to. There has never been a question of this.
Frankly, our forty-something children were more outraged with this backward step than they were worried that Obama would not make it, and that Palin would. They have grown up knowing about the Omnibus Bill.
We were horrified that several States passed an anti-gay marriage bill, particularly in California.(Utah one can understand, Brian--they're very strange there anyway). Here, we believe that people who love one another and want to commit to them should marry, if they want to. There has never been a question of this.
Frankly, our forty-something children were more outraged with this backward step than they were worried that Obama would not make it, and that Palin would. They have grown up knowing about the Omnibus Bill.
-
barrybrooks8
- Temp
- Posts: 463
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:34 pm
- Location: Milwaukee
For weeks I've been wavering about attending the upcoming Sundance festival, where I've covered documentaries, shorts, foreign films, and avant-garde selections for GreenCine Daily the past two years. The reason? I haven't been sure if I could really afford it. Even though GreenCine pays me a little, and last year I saw my movies for free because I was press accredited (and I have no reason to think I wouldn't be again this year), there are still other considerations like airfare, food, and the cost of getting up to Park City and back from my usual crash pad in Salt Lake City.
But after Tuesday, I'm finding my enthusiasm for spending even a penny in Utah this January, where it might end up in some Mormon-controlled political war chest completely gone. Perhaps I should be boycotting my own state as well, but that's a lot less practical. I do plan to avoid spending money in the only Bay Area county that voted yes on the proposition- Solano county.
The only question I have is whether I should make a public declaration of my non-attendance on my blog (where, depending on how I frame it, it might have a chance of catching the attention of some Hollywood insiders- not that I'm some heavyweight attendee or anything) or just keep the decision between me and my friends. Anyone have any thoughts?
But after Tuesday, I'm finding my enthusiasm for spending even a penny in Utah this January, where it might end up in some Mormon-controlled political war chest completely gone. Perhaps I should be boycotting my own state as well, but that's a lot less practical. I do plan to avoid spending money in the only Bay Area county that voted yes on the proposition- Solano county.
The only question I have is whether I should make a public declaration of my non-attendance on my blog (where, depending on how I frame it, it might have a chance of catching the attention of some Hollywood insiders- not that I'm some heavyweight attendee or anything) or just keep the decision between me and my friends. Anyone have any thoughts?
Utah faces boycott after Mormon work for Prop 8
By BROCK VERGAKIS, Associated Press Writer Brock Vergakis, Associated Press Writer
Fri Nov 7, 7:32 pm ET
SALT LAKE CITY – Utah's growing tourism industry and the star-studded Sundance Film Festival are being targeted for a boycott by bloggers, gay rights activists and others seeking to punish the Mormon church for its aggressive promotion of California's ban on gay marriage.
It could be a heavy price to pay. Tourism brings in $6 billion a year to Utah, with world-class skiing, a spectacular red rock country and the film festival founded by Robert Redford, among other popular tourist draws.
"At a fundamental level, the Utah Mormons crossed the line on this one," said gay rights activist John Aravosis, an influential blogger in Washington, D.C.
"They just took marriage away from 20,000 couples and made their children bastards," he said. "You don't do that and get away with it."
Salt Lake City is the world headquarters for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which counts about 62 percent of Utah residents as members.
The church encouraged its members to work to pass California's Proposition 8 by volunteering their time and money for the campaign. Thousands of Mormons worked as grassroots volunteers and gave tens of millions of dollars to the campaign.
The ballot measure passed Tuesday. It amends the California Constitution to define marriage as a heterosexual act, overriding a state Supreme Court ruling that briefly gave same-sex couples the right to wed.
The backlash against the church — and by extension Utah — has been immediate. Protests erupted outside Mormon temples, Facebook groups formed telling people to boycott Utah, and Web sites such as mormonsstoleourrights.com began popping up, calling for an end to the church's tax-exempt status.
Church spokeswoman Kim Farah said in a statement about the temple protests Friday that it is "disturbing" that the church is being singled out for exercising its right to speak up in a free election.
"While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process," Farah said.
The church had said in a statement after Tuesday's vote that "no one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information." [Ha! That's rich!]
Aravosis is the editor of the popular americablog.com, which has about 900,000 unique monthly visitors.
He is calling for skiers to choose any state but Utah and for Hollywood actors and directors to pull out of the Sundance Film Festival. Other bloggers and readers have responded to his call.
"There's a movement afoot and large donors are involved who are very interested in organizing a campaign, because I do not believe in frivolous boycotts," said Aravosis, who has helped organize boycotts against "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger's television show, Microsoft and Ford over gay rights issues.
"The main focus is going to be going after the Utah brand," he said. "At this point, honestly, we're going to destroy the Utah brand. It is a hate state."
Gay rights groups did not immediately weigh in on calls for a boycott. Jim Key, spokesman for the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center, said he had heard little about such an effort.
"It's not something that we have called for, but we do think it is important to send a message to the Mormon church," Key said. He noted an effort run by the center to overturn Proposition 8 that sends a postcard to the Mormon church president with each contribution made.
A Sundance spokeswoman didn't return messages. Leigh von der Esch, managing director of the Utah Office of Tourism, said that she's aware there's been discussion of a boycott, but that her office hadn't received any calls about it Thursday. State offices are closed Friday.
"We're respectful of both sides of the equation and realize it's an emotional issue, but we are here promoting what we think is the best state in the country," she said.
What kind of economic, religious or political impact, if any, a boycott might have is unclear. The Mormon church has members all over the world and no plans to change its stance on gay marriage.
Aravosis is not calling for a boycott of California, though that state's voters actually approved the ban.
"At this point, the Californians are the victims and the Mormons are the persecutors," he said. "We had won this until they swept in. ... We need to send a message to Utah that they need to stop trying to inflict their way of life on every other state."
Bob Malone, CEO and president of the Park City Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau, said it is unfair to try to punish certain industries or parts of the state over an issue it had nothing to do with.
"It's really not a Park City thing, and I don't see it as a state thing. That was more of a religious issue," he said. "To sweep people in who really have nothing to do with that issue and have no influence over religious issues — it's sad that people kind of think that and say, 'We're going to bury you.' It's sad to hear people talk like that."
By BROCK VERGAKIS, Associated Press Writer Brock Vergakis, Associated Press Writer
Fri Nov 7, 7:32 pm ET
SALT LAKE CITY – Utah's growing tourism industry and the star-studded Sundance Film Festival are being targeted for a boycott by bloggers, gay rights activists and others seeking to punish the Mormon church for its aggressive promotion of California's ban on gay marriage.
It could be a heavy price to pay. Tourism brings in $6 billion a year to Utah, with world-class skiing, a spectacular red rock country and the film festival founded by Robert Redford, among other popular tourist draws.
"At a fundamental level, the Utah Mormons crossed the line on this one," said gay rights activist John Aravosis, an influential blogger in Washington, D.C.
"They just took marriage away from 20,000 couples and made their children bastards," he said. "You don't do that and get away with it."
Salt Lake City is the world headquarters for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which counts about 62 percent of Utah residents as members.
The church encouraged its members to work to pass California's Proposition 8 by volunteering their time and money for the campaign. Thousands of Mormons worked as grassroots volunteers and gave tens of millions of dollars to the campaign.
The ballot measure passed Tuesday. It amends the California Constitution to define marriage as a heterosexual act, overriding a state Supreme Court ruling that briefly gave same-sex couples the right to wed.
The backlash against the church — and by extension Utah — has been immediate. Protests erupted outside Mormon temples, Facebook groups formed telling people to boycott Utah, and Web sites such as mormonsstoleourrights.com began popping up, calling for an end to the church's tax-exempt status.
Church spokeswoman Kim Farah said in a statement about the temple protests Friday that it is "disturbing" that the church is being singled out for exercising its right to speak up in a free election.
"While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process," Farah said.
The church had said in a statement after Tuesday's vote that "no one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information." [Ha! That's rich!]
Aravosis is the editor of the popular americablog.com, which has about 900,000 unique monthly visitors.
He is calling for skiers to choose any state but Utah and for Hollywood actors and directors to pull out of the Sundance Film Festival. Other bloggers and readers have responded to his call.
"There's a movement afoot and large donors are involved who are very interested in organizing a campaign, because I do not believe in frivolous boycotts," said Aravosis, who has helped organize boycotts against "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger's television show, Microsoft and Ford over gay rights issues.
"The main focus is going to be going after the Utah brand," he said. "At this point, honestly, we're going to destroy the Utah brand. It is a hate state."
Gay rights groups did not immediately weigh in on calls for a boycott. Jim Key, spokesman for the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center, said he had heard little about such an effort.
"It's not something that we have called for, but we do think it is important to send a message to the Mormon church," Key said. He noted an effort run by the center to overturn Proposition 8 that sends a postcard to the Mormon church president with each contribution made.
A Sundance spokeswoman didn't return messages. Leigh von der Esch, managing director of the Utah Office of Tourism, said that she's aware there's been discussion of a boycott, but that her office hadn't received any calls about it Thursday. State offices are closed Friday.
"We're respectful of both sides of the equation and realize it's an emotional issue, but we are here promoting what we think is the best state in the country," she said.
What kind of economic, religious or political impact, if any, a boycott might have is unclear. The Mormon church has members all over the world and no plans to change its stance on gay marriage.
Aravosis is not calling for a boycott of California, though that state's voters actually approved the ban.
"At this point, the Californians are the victims and the Mormons are the persecutors," he said. "We had won this until they swept in. ... We need to send a message to Utah that they need to stop trying to inflict their way of life on every other state."
Bob Malone, CEO and president of the Park City Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau, said it is unfair to try to punish certain industries or parts of the state over an issue it had nothing to do with.
"It's really not a Park City thing, and I don't see it as a state thing. That was more of a religious issue," he said. "To sweep people in who really have nothing to do with that issue and have no influence over religious issues — it's sad that people kind of think that and say, 'We're going to bury you.' It's sad to hear people talk like that."
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
Steve Young makes a clarification re his position on Prop 8; reading between the lines, I think the higher-ups at the Mormon Church got into a tizzy and told him to shut up; still, I like that he seems to be saying that he's still voting no.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders reverses stand on Gay Marriage. His emotional speech is quite moving:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rfea8iEGNw
From Sporting News.com:
And former San Francisco 49er quarterback Steve Young -- one of the most beloved sports figure in California and, not only a Mormon but a direct descendent of Brigham Young -- has publicly opposed Prop 8 and donated money to the cause.
Thursday's news that Jeff Kent has given $15,000 to the campaign seeking to ban gay marriage in California came as only mild surprise to those who have listened to Kent talk for more than a few seconds. But last night, the San Francisco Chronicle's John Wildermuth offered a sports-gay marriage shocker: former SF QB Steve Young, one of the most famous Mormons in the world, has donated $37,000 to the side seeking to retain gay marriage rights.
Mormons have led the fight to ban gay marriage this election cycle. Early in the summer, the leaders of the Mormon Church distributed a call to action to California members. The church has bankrolled the campaign. You'd expect it could count on such a highly recognizable parishoner, a Bay Area hero, a direct descendant of one of the key figures in the early Mormon church. But the opposite happened, and it's possible the news could rally this weekend's GOTV efforts in Northern California.
Beyond the extra $20,000 Young kicked in, there's a weapon at the QB's disposal Kent can't match: Kent keeps his official residence in Texas, while Young lives in the Bay Area and will actually vote on this proposition. Score one for the "No on 8" side.
Let's hope this doesn't lead to BYU ridding Legacy Hall of all Young paraphenalia, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rfea8iEGNw
From Sporting News.com:
And former San Francisco 49er quarterback Steve Young -- one of the most beloved sports figure in California and, not only a Mormon but a direct descendent of Brigham Young -- has publicly opposed Prop 8 and donated money to the cause.
Thursday's news that Jeff Kent has given $15,000 to the campaign seeking to ban gay marriage in California came as only mild surprise to those who have listened to Kent talk for more than a few seconds. But last night, the San Francisco Chronicle's John Wildermuth offered a sports-gay marriage shocker: former SF QB Steve Young, one of the most famous Mormons in the world, has donated $37,000 to the side seeking to retain gay marriage rights.
Mormons have led the fight to ban gay marriage this election cycle. Early in the summer, the leaders of the Mormon Church distributed a call to action to California members. The church has bankrolled the campaign. You'd expect it could count on such a highly recognizable parishoner, a Bay Area hero, a direct descendant of one of the key figures in the early Mormon church. But the opposite happened, and it's possible the news could rally this weekend's GOTV efforts in Northern California.
Beyond the extra $20,000 Young kicked in, there's a weapon at the QB's disposal Kent can't match: Kent keeps his official residence in Texas, while Young lives in the Bay Area and will actually vote on this proposition. Score one for the "No on 8" side.
Let's hope this doesn't lead to BYU ridding Legacy Hall of all Young paraphenalia, though.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
-
MovieWes
- Professor
- Posts: 2019
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:33 pm
- Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
- Contact:
I'm not against you. I'm totally in agreement with you. From what I had been told (and which OscarGuy clarified for me), I thought that these propositions were trying to force churches, synagogs, mosques, etc. to perform ceremonies, which was not true. This is apparently just another lie that has been purported by the Fundamentalists/Evangelicals. My main problem was that I am against the government telling people how they should live their lives, and this includes telling religious institutions -- not just Christian churches, but any place of worship, regardless of religion -- how to do things and what to accept, regardless of what other people may think -- and this also includes granting everyone, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or anything else, the rights to live their lives the way in which they feel is best for themselves. Now that I know this is not the case, see no reason why gay marriage shouldn't be passed. And just so you know, I have always been a supporter of civil unions that afford homosexual couples all the same constitutional rights as heterosexual couples.
And I have never condemned anyone for anything based on my religion, nor will I ever. It is not my place. And even though I am a Christian, I'm not really a particularly religious person. I get the feeling that you think that my comments were homophobic, which is a completely false assumption. I am a very accepting person. I feel completely comfortable and at ease with everyone on this board, which is why I felt compelled to share my feelings on the subject. There is absolutely no reason for you to get bent out of shape at me, since I feel that my comments have been nothing but respectful, understanding, and not even remotely homophobic in their intent. If my comments offended you in any way, then I appologize.
Edited By MovieWes on 1224957256
And I have never condemned anyone for anything based on my religion, nor will I ever. It is not my place. And even though I am a Christian, I'm not really a particularly religious person. I get the feeling that you think that my comments were homophobic, which is a completely false assumption. I am a very accepting person. I feel completely comfortable and at ease with everyone on this board, which is why I felt compelled to share my feelings on the subject. There is absolutely no reason for you to get bent out of shape at me, since I feel that my comments have been nothing but respectful, understanding, and not even remotely homophobic in their intent. If my comments offended you in any way, then I appologize.
Edited By MovieWes on 1224957256
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
MovieWes wrote:The only thing that I'm uncomfortable with is forcing a religious institution to perform a ceremony that goes against its doctrine.
Its "doctrine" is a mangling of the original intent of the religion itself. If I recall correctly, Jesus praised tolerance and understanding of all God's creatures, which happens to include gay people. To use the doctrine of Christianity in order to prevent two people who love each other from entering into a blessed union is the very definition of hypocrisy.
This is all beside the point, anyway. As OscarGuy said, no one is asking the church to amend their "doctrines" (no matter how many centuries of bullshit they're built upon) in order to accomodate us. All we're asking is for them to keep their religion out of our right to gain the same rights as everyone else.
How would you feel if you and a girl you liked were walking down the street holding hands and a carful of strangers drove by and screaming obscenities at you? Why is it exactly that we have to be engaged in this constant struggle to be afforded the same rights as any other American human? It's just disgusting.
Edited By flipp525 on 1224953959
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-
MovieWes
- Professor
- Posts: 2019
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:33 pm
- Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
- Contact:
Okay then. In that case, I see no problem why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. I guess we're on the same side.
Edited By MovieWes on 1224885097
Edited By MovieWes on 1224885097
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
There never has been a forcing of Religious institutions for performing gay marriage.
You're assuming facts not in evidence. The term marriage, whether religious or secular, is being used in these discussions as the LEGAL terminology. No gay couple is demanding churches go against their dogma and perform ceremonies. Instead, they are wanting churches to keep their beliefs out of secular arenas, which is where they want to stick their noses when they oppose gay marriage.
You're assuming facts not in evidence. The term marriage, whether religious or secular, is being used in these discussions as the LEGAL terminology. No gay couple is demanding churches go against their dogma and perform ceremonies. Instead, they are wanting churches to keep their beliefs out of secular arenas, which is where they want to stick their noses when they oppose gay marriage.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
MovieWes
- Professor
- Posts: 2019
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:33 pm
- Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
- Contact:
I guess so. I mean, even if a couple is "married" in a church, they still have to fill out the proper documentation to make it legal. In my opinion, even heterosexual couples who are "married" in a church would legally, in the eyes of the law, be entering into a "civil union." A heterosexual couple who gets "married" in a courthouse would also be entering into a legal "civil union." A homosexual couple who gets "married" in a church, if the church allows it, would be entering into a "civil union." They can also be "married" if it is okay with their church. Likewise, if they get "married" in a courthouse, they would be entering into a legal "civil union." So, in essence, everyone has the same equal rights in the eyes of the law (same legal terminology and everything for everybody) and the word "marriage" would remain "holy matrimony." The only thing that I'm uncomfortable with is forcing a religious institution to perform a ceremony that goes against its doctrine.rain Bard wrote:I wonder if you're in favor of preventing heterosexual couples from getting married at the courthouse instead of the church, too? Should they have to go for "civil unions" instead of marriages if they're not interested in involving religion in their ceremony?
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
If the government stopped calling Marriage "marriage" and instead called it, legally, civil unions, I don't think most homosexual couples would care if they got "marriage" as a term. However, the government isn't going to do it. Which is why gays are pressing for EQUAL rights, not Separate But Equal. As for the verb to Marry, it gets its origins from the Old French marier, which is in turn from the Latin maritare. The original origin was 1297 but was not used by priests until 1530 per this site: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marry.
It is like many other words repurposed that don't necessarily mean now what they originally meant. The below link also discusses the definition.
http://www.pflagsanjose.org/advocacy/doma.html
And why should voters be allowed to vote on something that amounts to discrimination? The courts have been called in to adjudicate marriage because too often religious institutions will push for a classification and get passed laws that clearly inhibit people's rights. You may not personally agree with that, but if the courts aren't going to protect civil liberties from the people who create the laws, who will? Legal remedy is the only clear way to protect gay rights because legislators are afraid of the Religious wRong. How else would you explain the constant push to avoiding including sexual orientation or gender identity into anti-discrimination legislation?
It is like many other words repurposed that don't necessarily mean now what they originally meant. The below link also discusses the definition.
http://www.pflagsanjose.org/advocacy/doma.html
And why should voters be allowed to vote on something that amounts to discrimination? The courts have been called in to adjudicate marriage because too often religious institutions will push for a classification and get passed laws that clearly inhibit people's rights. You may not personally agree with that, but if the courts aren't going to protect civil liberties from the people who create the laws, who will? Legal remedy is the only clear way to protect gay rights because legislators are afraid of the Religious wRong. How else would you explain the constant push to avoiding including sexual orientation or gender identity into anti-discrimination legislation?
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
I wonder if you're in favor of preventing heterosexual couples from getting married at the courthouse instead of the church, too? Should they have to go for "civil unions" instead of marriages if they're not interested in involving religion in their ceremony?
I don't think that's fair.
The problem with this issue is that marriage is both a religious and a civil union, and reconciling the two is going to be a very bumpy road. I personally have no issue with calling it a marriage because I am not a religious person and I don't see a difference. Heterosexuals have been making a sham out of the institution of marriage for centuries, it's time for gays to have a turn at it.
That being said, I understand people who disagree whether it be for more practical reasons such as MovieWes's small government approach of a request that marriage be a sacred institution between a man and a woman. I don't agree, but I understand it and it is a valid opinion. Ultimately, I don't think it matters. Civil unions are enough of a baby step for now and gay marriage seems like an inevitability.
"How's the despair?"