How's your third marriage working out, you slimy hypocrite?

I've thought that for a long time. Brings out the wingnuts.

It cost us the 2004 election. Without that issue on the ballot in Ohio, Kerry would have won.

So, quit bitching, folks. Keillor is right.

the first time he has written about gay marriage, but

This isn't the first time Keillor has written ugly things about gay marriage. He's spoken out pretty clearly against it.

Clearly the most moronic thing I've read all day. Because, what Garrison wrote was not ugly, except to people who are ugly themselves.

appear to have gathered here to roast Garrison.

Well, fruck you all. Keillor's gentle, reasonable comments were his to make, and I support them.

Is Keillor so addle-brained he thinks adultery got invented recently? My mother worked in an illegal abortion clinic in WWII - many, many women whose husband were overseas found themselves preggers. The demand for abortion was great.

My mother was married three times, my Dad twice. All before the Beatles came to America. I have relations I have never met.

I don't find his piece anti-gay. And I do not think it hypocritical to wish things were true even if we cannot do them ourselves. I don't think it is totally crazy to believe your parent were perfect, unless they weren't - like mine; then you are in need of therapy.

I just cannot figure out what happened to Keillor to convince him he grew up in a black and white TV show.

Yes friends, it's sad yet true: Garrison Keillor has jumped the shark.

Oh Garrison, because this "jumping the shark" is a phrase first used in the 90s instead of the 50s, please allow me to explain it for you.

When something that was once mildly amusing and charming (like you) becomes sad and embarrassing (like you) because of some pathetic attempt to garner attention after its natural life span of interest has passed, we say that thing has Jumped the Shark.

Of course once something previously found mildly amusing and charming jumps the shark we can only think back on those earlier feelings with a sense of shame and regret. Which is how I will henceforth think about you.

This isn't the first time Keillor has written ugly things about gay marriage. He's spoken out pretty clearly against it.

See this from 2005: http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/features/deskofgk/2005/old_scout/07/05.shtml

And this interview:

I ask Keillor if there any other positions Democrats should jettison.

“I think that gay marriage is also an issue that does no good for us and I want to see us divest ourselves of this,” Keillor says. “The symbolism of gay people marrying is terribly potent, terrible powerful, and we ignore this at our peril in our party."

I never liked Mr. Keillor´s brand of "humor". Now I can say I don´t like Mr. Keillor either. And how could someone write about such an important topic and resort to stupid stereotypes?

It was quite interesting to see Dan Savage's response to the Keilor column. Savage is always entertaining and usually pretty sensible. But subtle he’s not and here he just shows how helpless he is in dealing with someone who is. Looking back at the Keilor piece, I can see--sort of--why Savage feels slapped in the face. And I think Keilor does have a bias or two showing here. But having said that, I think Savage and many of the letter writers here are just not getting it. For example, Keilor says:

"Today, serial monogamy has stretched the extended family to the breaking point. A child can now grow up with eight or nine or 10 grandparents -- Gampa, Gammy, Goopa, Gumby, Papa, Poopsy, Goofy, Gaga and Chuck -- and need a program to keep track of the actors."

Savage assumes that this is an attack on serial monogamy and then calls Keilor a despicable hyprocrite since Keilor is in fact a serial monagamist himself. But in context, Keilor is not attacking or maligning. He is saying that this is what 'our' lives are like now, and including himself in the group. For anyone with eyes to see, he is saying very explicitly: "This is what my personal life is like now and I find it somewhat bemusing that what I have created in my life is so different than what I grew up with." I would call this the opposite of hypocrisy.

Keilor's comments about the stereotypical gay men in the chartreuse pants are a little odd and I can see how they might offend. And what's the point exactly? But to call this an attack on all gay parenting is a little much. Surely gay parenting has more serious enemies than this! Keilor's main point is that parents need to nurture and then get old and that children always ultimately come into the center stage. Is Keilor saying that this applies to straight parents but not gay parents? Or to gays but not straights? No, he's saying it applies to both. He is in fact being inclusive in a way that only a few mainstream figures are these days. It’s sad that Savage just misses this entirely.

Mr. Keillor:

I've been listening to your show for many years, and have always been supportive of your politics and views. You sounded off against President Bush and the war right from the start, and I have always been appreciative of that.

But as a modern city-dweller, and liberal, who values diversity and maintains a circle of acquaintances that does include homosexuals - I have to say I found your article very disappointing and smug. Try to move beyond your old-style fuddy-duddy values and get with the times!

Just as it can sometimes be acceptable to print slightly negative stereotypes of non-whites--but only if the piece is written by someone belonging to the group being skewered--it might be OK to make a joke about what nelly, campy fags gay men were if the piece were written by someone gay or lesbian or bi. But this piece isn't. Also consider that the main point of the article is to argue against the parenting rights of gay men (lesbians, oddly, aren't even mentioned--maybe because Keillor doesn't know enough about them even to rehash tired stereotypes). Point being, it's a homophobic piece, satire or not. Not to mention that it's not even remotely funny. And not to mention that Garrison Keillor has cheated on at least 2 of his 3 wives, so who is he to talk about some nostalgic heterosexual past that he's contributed to screwing up just as much or more than some imaginary chartreuse pant-wearing gay couple. And as for straight people's constant defense that "it's just a joke; lighten up, queers"--again, I think it's usually a minority group that gets to decide if jokes about them are funny or not. And this one isn't.

I'm really disappointed in San Francisco-based Salon for totally missing the mark on this one. Really disappointed.