Or at least appeal to what better angels he might have so he falls on his knees, teeth gnashing, as he pounds out three thousand words, once per week for a year of apology for his hideous, yet also piquantly ignorant anti-queer family idiocy?

Better yet, have him donate funds from all future pieces to any gay-friendly childrens' rights groups.

Here is the text of what he's written and posted on the home page of his Prairie Home Companion website: http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/

"Ordinarily I don't like to use this space to talk about my newspaper column but the most recent column aroused such angry reactions that I thought I should reply. The column was done tongue-in-cheek, always a risky thing, and was meant to be funny, another risky thing these days, and two sentences about gay people lit a fire in some readers and sent them racing to their computers to fire off some jagged e-mails. That's okay. But the underlying cause of the trouble is rather simple.

I live in a small world — the world of entertainment, musicians, writers — in which gayness is as common as having brown eyes. Ever since I was in college, gay men and women have been friends, associates, heroes, adversaries, and in that small world, we talk openly and we kid each other and think nothing of it. But in the larger world, gayness is controversial. In almost every state, gay marriage would be voted down if put on a ballot. Gay men and women have been targeted by the right wing as a hot-button issue. And so gay people out in the larger world feel beseiged to some degree. In the small world I live in, they feel accepted and cherished as individuals, but in the larger world they may feel like Types. My column spoke as we would speak in my small world and it was read by people in the larger world and thus the misunderstanding. And for that, I am sorry. Gay people who set out to be parents can be just as good parents as anybody else, and they know that, and so do I."

Pass it on, please.

... was meant to be funny, another risky thing these days, and two sentences about gay people lit a fire in some readers and sent them racing to their computers to fire off some jagged e-mails.

man, what a douche. He's such a phony, and a coward, with his lame little "oh but I just live in this special little world where everyone recognizes my genius humor" thing. Oh please. He's written about gay marriage before and it hasn't been in a positive light. Garrison, you're just a boring, unfunny old man. You're way behind the times, and no, that's not a compliment.

Oh this really helps. He trots out the old "I am sorry that people were offended," "some of my best friends are gay," "it was only a joke," and "you people are too senstitive," responses in this non-apology and non-explanation of what he really meant to convey. OK, so it was an a joke, but why this joke? What was the purpose of the joke? Clearly somebody who has made quite a successful career as a humorist knows full well that humor writing is not devoid of meaning...

And, let me tell you Mr. Keillor, I bet many of your queer friends, colleagues that seem to laugh along with you when you trot out your cute little patronizing stereotypes are actually annoyed and offended. They may not let you know, given your very real material power and iconic status you enjoy among the public radio set, but they are. And as someone who also works in the world of culture, I can tell you that anti-queer sentiment an practices still operate, albeit in a less violent and oppressive way (again, your tendency to produce utopias makes you less than the trenchant observer you imagine yourself to be). You are too smart for this kind of Tony Snow non-apology, why not take this opportunity to think about the way you exercise your power and start to build bridges.

From the species point of view, the most significant component of an animal (i.e. human) population isn't the children--these can easily be replaced. It's the breeding pairs.

The contemporary (and Romantic) madness of child-worship to which Garrison here so strangely genuflects has nothing whatever to do with science. It would in fact be contrary to nature if nature gave a damn.

...but I do know a sincere apology when I hear or see one, and that one from GK ain't it. He says he wrote his piece as in "the small world" and people read it as in "the larger world" (exactly where he was publishing his piece, I do believe, since people other than entertainers, musicians, and writers read Salon) and now he is sorry for "the misunderstanding." A real apology would have said, "I'm sorry that I offended you" with the onus on the writer. This one says, "I'm sorry for the misunderstanding" which can only mean "I'm sorry that you readers misunderstood" with the onus placed squarely on the reader. Nice try, GK, but it just doesn't fly in my book (mixed metaphors, anyone?).

when is this time in history when everyone had a yard? there has never been such a historical period ... or a time when everyone had a mom who was female ... and a dad who was male ... my dad's dad abandoned his family during the depression ... my dad didn't have a dad ... and his mom couldn't afford to feed him, so he went to stay at people's house who were not his relatives ... and my mom's dad was an alcoholic ... and her mom raised four kids by herself ... and even if that was true ... that there was a time when there were no gay people who raised kids ... let's assume for a moment that Garrison's warped nostalgia was the truth ... back in the day, some white people had slaves, and there was no such thing as a five day work week, and abortion was illegal ... and jews couldn't work at many jobs because they were jews ... etc. the past is the past ... and there is always a loss and a gain as we move forward. in this case, the loss is that we still have to read opinions like mr. K's ... the gain, our future, is that his is a dying opinion.