Enjoyed. Garrison, this was great. I have read comments by people offended, and think they have other issues that need to be dealt with. They need to become more secure in their understanding of their own selves, and learn passion for the lighter side of life. Peace and happiness.

Keillor has been married three times:

To Mary Guntzel, from 1965 to 1976. The couple has one son, Jason, born in 1969.

To Ulla Skaerved (a former exchange student from Denmark whom he famously re-encountered at a high school reunion), from 1985 to 1990. Keillor is mildly notorious for having dumped his long-time lover and PHC producer Margaret Moos to marry Ulla. The marriage failed when Keillor had an affair with his Danish language teacher.

His current wife, violinist Jenny Lind Nilsson (b. 1958), from his hometown of Anoka,whom he married in 1995. They have one daughter, Maia, born in 1998.

Nice family values there, Garrison. Do your kids need a computer program to keep track of their relatives?

Just curious.

I used to like listenting to you...not anymore.

Please re-read all the comments that say "satire" doesn't mean you get a free pass.

Please re-read all the comments that say it is possible to write satire badly.

Please re-read all the comments that say even if this were the funniest, smartest thing ever written, Keillor's characterization of gays is just as offensive as if he had characterized Jews as bloodsuckers or African-Americans as crackheads.

People aren't upset because they're stupid, Brian. They're upset because this essay was upsetting to them. They don't "not get it". They just didn't get it your way, which is not necessarily the best or only way to get it.

Finally, Keillor has a history of unfortunate comments about gays and marriage equality. You can find quotes and links at the Dan Savage link published elsewhere. To find the Dan Savage link, please re-read the comments containing them.

Then maybe you'll get why those of us who don't appreciate failed, insultingly written "humor" have a point. Or maybe not. We still get to read this the only way that's obvious to us, however, even if it isn't obvious to you.

and not funny to the children you claim to care about who don't have medical insurance because of bigoted laws.

Here's a clue - maybe some day when gay families actually are treated equally and prople dont have to worry about being fired and kicked out of the military and beaten on the street, we can make these little funny jokes, OK ?

But until then - not at all funny.

We can let you know when, and until then please STFU

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.

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!

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.