is Mr. Keillor's aim to be deadpan, tongue firmly planted in cheek here? I would like to think so. Regardless, it falls flat. With all of the gay baiting the right has freely indulged in over the course of the current administration's reign, I find it a little too soon for the joke.

If it were simply Mr. Keillor bombing with an unfortunately timed column, I'd be willing to let it go. However, this, combined with Salon's embrace of Camille Paglia shows very poor judgment on the part of an editorial staff who already had a long way to go towards being inclusive of, if not sensitive to, gay and lesbian content and concerns.

I may stand alone in this regard, but if not, I urge readers who feel the same to write directly to Salon's editors and let them know that this is not acceptable from what is supposed to be a liberal and progressive publication.

To copy the Dixie Chicks, I am embarrassed that Garrison Keillor is from Minnesota. I am surprised that someone from my beautiful state would denigrate gay people and families with gay parents.

As a thirty-seven year old gay man, I’ve been in a great relationship with a wonderful guy for the last thirteen years. In a country filled with gay bashing and job discrimination, I’d like to see more acceptance. I’d like to see legal recognition of my relationship, since the death of either me or my partner would sink the survivor financially.

After a good main point, he veers off to suggest that gay marriage should be outlawed because it causes too much confusion... too many male in-laws. Garrison says what's best for all children is a mongamous "mixed-gender marriage", even though he himself has been married three times, cheating on his first two wives. Gay people should not be parents, unless they act straight.

Wow. I’m stunned. Such amazing hatred from someone I really liked. I thought Keillor was a liberal – someone trying to make the world a better place. I’m not sure if it’s ignorance or bad comedy, but it’s disappointing. I won’t be reading his books or supporting him in any way in the future.

Goodbye. I’ve got to go play a rugby game tomorrow. Yeah rugby… Garrison you ignorant jerk.

Mr. Keillor,

I always found it surprising - even suspect - that as such a central figure in the nostalgia industry, a field full of conservatives pining away for the good old days, you could be such a beacon of moderate (and even left-leaning) political views. I have for many years while listening to "A Prairie Home Companion" enjoyed a little frisson when you said something which I knew was making all the conservative Republicans out there squirm a bit in their seats.

However, your recent Salon piece has changed my opinion of you forever - you ARE the anti-gay bigot I long suspected you to be.

You wrote:

"Back in the day, that was the standard arrangement. Everyone had a yard, a garage, a female mom, a male dad, and "

"And now gay marriage will produce a whole new string of hyphenated relatives ... and I suppose we'll get used to it."

"The country has come to accept stereotypical gay men -- sardonic fellows with fussy hair who live in over-decorated apartments with a striped sofa and a small weird dog and who worship campy performers and go in for flamboyance now and then themselves. If they want to be accepted as couples and daddies, however, the flamboyance may have to be brought under control. Parents are supposed to stand in back and not wear chartreuse pants and black polka-dot shirts."

These statements are so patronizing and offensive to me that I do not even know where to begin to address them. Dan Savage, however, makes a good start - why don't you have a look at his article?:

http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2007/03/fuck_garrison_keillor

Claiming, in retrospect, that your piece was satire, or something of the sort (the standard retreat when a hypocrite such as you is called on the carpet) will do you no good, Sir. You are unmasked.

Those of you droning on about how the rest of us are just "missing" it- it being such brilliant, witty satire- must be pretty hard up for quality reading. The guy is not funny. He is a tedious old bore.

I'll bet you also found The Da Vinci code to be amazing literature for the ages. Try getting some taste.

The questions in my post were rhetorical. Duh. Just because I don't find this article funny and I am offended by it does NOT mean I don't understand it.

I won't repeat myself a third time.

Just kidding. But seriously, I think a lot of people are projecting their own neurosis on Keillor.

Gay folks: It's not like he called you names or advocated the murder of all of you. In fact, he qualified his stereotypical description of gay men by calling it (wait for it....) stereotypical.

That description of the gay man is as antiquated as the other nostalgic ramblings he seems to revere in the essay. Though, I'm sorry gay folks, there are gay men like that out there. Just like there are black folks who are thieves, Mexicans who are lazy, Chinese people who are good at math, and white people who are the epitome of the evil White Devil (we've all felt the white supremacist patriarchal homophobic mind-fuck, even the pale ones...) Don't even get me started on the gold-diggin hussy and her manwhore companion who come in all races, religion, and creeds. The problem, is, when you use these kind of stereotypes without acknowledging that they are stereotypes. And also gay folks, like your darker hued brethren, you should just kind of own it.

(I just want to say... I love fried chicken and watermelon...and stealing. And what, white Devils!)

Unlike Keillor's religious right counterpart, I don't beleive he is truly advocating for the good old days. So there's no need to remind him that I had to give my seat up to white folks on the bus back then, or that the moms in those wholesome homes were probably doped up on little helpers.

Besides, were those comments even "homphobic." I don't think he's scared of Gay people. Or even hates them. In fact, he seems to speak fondly of the chatreuse clad minions stealing a little kids thunder.