Firstly: wouldn't civil union legislation - done properly - haveallowed you to visit your ill partner in the hospital as a "spouse" would do?

What so many of you are not getting is that the trigger point for the redneck homophobes out there is not the act of union or rights associated with marriage (e.g. hospital rights granted by a strong civil union law); it is, to be brutally honest, the word "marriage" itself preceding the word "gay".

And on this Sunday, every damn evangelical church in middle states across the USA is gonna be preaching to their (voting) faithful about the eeeevil of "gay marriage." Somewhere, Karl Rove will wear a shit-eating grin from today 'til November.

********

"Sod the Democrats"

Very well said, kuhnigget. You might as well vote outright for McCain in November, because from your attitude it's obvious you are a Log Cabin Republican.

You're probably more than willing to wear a liberal hat when we go to bat for you on gay rights issues - BUT when we ask that maybe you come through for us on our other causes?? Like, you know, by perhaps a relatively slight adjustment in timing an advocacy push?

That's right. Sod off.

And FYI, you have no right to complain about anything Bush et al have wrought since 2004...or that President McCain will do now until at least 2012.

I don't think Hutman was saying their should not be feminism columns, discussions and Broadsheet in Salon.com.

He was addressing YOUR comment/question to the effect of "why can't we discuss sexism?"

The response: we do discuss it. It gets discussed here on Salon a lot. That's not a bad thing....

But why didn't you address HIS point/question??

Why can a "progressive" forum like Salon feature discussions of racism?

Why can't there be a Broadsheet equivalent that brings to light, comments on and encourages discussion on racism the way Broadsheet does for feminism? Certainly there are a load of topics (police brutality, Hispanics eclipsing blacks as largest minority, economy's effect on low-income people) to address.

Of course, the "white elephant" in the room with this question is that Salon's target/base of "progressive" white readers - while more than happy to battle against sexism - are too uncomfortable or indifferent towards racism.

*************

All power to the (white) women of Broadsheet for deconstructing women's issues.

Race? Well Hutman, mi amigo, guess we'll have to find another website for that.

First Ladies (and someday...Michelle Obama in 2020?...First Husbands as well) are largely expected by the public to occupy a symbolic role in the White House. Sure, they can actively campaign for their pet causes (e.g. Laura Bush and literacy)...but they are not supposed to play co-President.

This may seem misogynistic, but it is based on the notion that the President is elected to office by the people. His/her spouse is not.

The reason Hillary is hated rather than merely disliked is that in Big Bill's first term, she viewed herself as his political equal even though she held no political office.

The result of her "I'm the Co-President" attitude was her health insurance reform policy of '93; this turned out to be so politically disastrous that Newt and his GOPs hijacked Congress the next year, & the only way Bill sealed his re-election in '96 was to sell out his fellow Dems on welfare reform.

I'm guessing this played a dominant role in Hillary being hated...frankly, by people on both sides of the political divide. Unfair or not, unrealistic or not, the notion is that you earn your power - through elections, paying your dues etc.

{I despise Dubya for this same notion...among many others.}

We guys agree to not be threatened in any way by girls' vibrators, magic wands, overgrown cucumbers etc. (never was an issue for me personally, anyway)...

If you girls agree not to be threatened by the notion that a lonely guy (who might be very introverted, or not sufficiently attractive enough to interest "real" women) might seek out a sexual aid/ pair bonding substitute.

Seems fair, no?

*****************

I'd have to believe that if a male columnist wrote an article ridiculing and attacking women for using "fake-boyfriend" technology (like the legendary Hitachi) - and giving an implicit take-home message of 'Just get a REAL guy already, losers!' - that he would be (rightfully) criticized by sexually liberated women everywhere.

As a sexually liberated man, I feel that the criticism works both ways. Would I, umm, make use of a 2-D female? Nope. But I fail to see the harm (except to feminist egos) in using one!

While living in Minnesota/ attending U of MN, I dated a few local Lutheran girls who did not give oral. Mind you, they did have coital sex and had no problem with me going down on them (which I love to do anyway) - but BJs were something they did not do. [One of them - who I actually fell in love with at some point - blamed it on a 'sensitive jaw'. Umm, yeah.]

By contrast, ALL the girls raised Catholic (whether they still practice or not) who I have been intimate with have not only been willing to give oral, but most actually relish/are turned on by it themselves!

Now of course, I'm by no means saying - based on my anecdotal sampling of women - that Catholic girls automatically = BJ queens, or that Lutheran girls automatically = no head. My point is that there are still cultural/religious dynamics at play here when we talk about sexual preferences...

And FWIW: yes, based on my sexual experiences I would be more interested in dating a Catholic-raised woman than one who was not. =)