Friday Gay Blogging, Last Edition for This Weekend

I promise. It's about marriage. Two articles I couldn't pass up, and I missed getting them in yesterday's post.

Andrew Sullivan noted this article from the NYT Magazine this weekend, which I had also read via Jeremy Hooper at Good As You.

As the night went on, the gays and the straights — fueled, I suspect, by a shared appreciation for liquor — began to mingle, and before long the party coalesced into a boisterous celebration. Joshua looked delighted. And in a rare moment of repose, he sidled up to his taller, auburn-haired mate.

“Honey,” Joshua said, “we may be married, but we still know how to have a good time, don’t we?”

Benjamin, sharply outfitted in green corduroys and an argyle sweater over a striped dress shirt, smiled. “Josh is extremely social, and he keeps us busy all the time,” he told me. “I think we may be proof that opposites do attract.”

Sullivan notes:

It's important to remember when you read of such self-evidently constructive relationships that they are banned in 40 states, and that the president of the United States believes that they are destructive of family life. In fact, one political party is now dedicated to demonizing these people and denying them basic legal protections and validity. Targeting these couples as examples of moral degeneracy is given legitimacy by the Pope himself. And preventing them from having civil equality is now a core plank of the Republican party. Ask yourself: are these couples in any way hurting anyone? How can they ever be understood as threat to anyone else's relationship or marriage or family? It makes no sense at all.

Sullivan also notes this article, from NYT's Weddings section. This is a great quote:

Mr. Fraley said they wanted to formalize their union before considering having children. “We have very traditional New York City family values,” Mr. Fraley said.

Eat that one, Dobson.

I don't think I really have to point out the broader politics of this one: two sympathetic articles on same-sex marriage from NYT, which until recently could barely bring itself to mention "homosexuals" and only recently started using "gay" in preference. And whatever else I may think about the Grey Lady, as NYT goes, so goes the nation.

Footnote: Sullivan calls the accompanying photos in the Magazine article "silly" but I think he missed it. They're parodies, Andrew, designed to get right up Focus on the Family's nose. Somebody was having some fun with this one.