Gay Patriot Header Image

Guest Post: My Ever Devolving Stance on Gay Marriage

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 5:23 pm - May 1, 2013.
Filed under: Gay Marriage

GP Ed. Note: This is a guest post by GayPatriot reader LJ Regine. 

LJ Regine is a blogger, writer and political junkie living in New York City. You can check out more of his work as a contributing writer for and his blog Whisky Dreams.


There is a book I recommend any young gay man read entitled Androphilia by Jack Donovan. I found it in 2008 and was confused, perplexed and challenged by it. I found it in 2008 and was confused, perplexed and challenged by it. It shattered everything I thought I knew about gay-ness and the gay identity. Donovan explained how gays needed to reject the gay community and reclaim the mantle of masculinity, as androphiles.

I’ve always been very interested in what it means to be a man (as I am one) and have found that as I get older — I get more and more in touch with my masculine side. Donovan has become a very prolific writer for me and has inspired many writings, creative and political, over the past couple of years. As someone who has always beat to my own drum, I find that I toe the line very smoothly between the gay and straight world. I never quite fit in with any one “community” or group of people. I’m an individual, believe in rugged individualism as an American ideal, am very patriotic — and have worked through and accepted many conservative view points. I could talk at length at how masculine I am or am not perceived to be, but I know that deep down, who I am, is unabashedly male.

The short end of the stick was being raised primarily by my mother with an ineffective father, who was taught from a young age to acquiesce to all the women in his life. Being raised and surrounded by, I grew up speaking the language of women. I was rejected by the boys on the playground as I was “too sensitive” and didn’t learn, til much later in life, how to man up and be part of the tribe.

As Donovan did, I found the gay community as some shelter from the storm of a world I thought didn’t understand me. But now, as I edge closer to 30 — I have begun to awaken the warrior within me. Men are violent, we are assertive, we are aggressive — but we are also noble, loyal, passionate and courageous. That is the man I am and aspire to be.

Now all this talk of gay marriage? I’m borrowing from Donovan’s thoughts on it — but I agree with him.

Marriage has historically, religiously and culturally been about men and women. It has historically been about the woman leaving her family, marrying a man, who protects and provides for her — and she in return, takes care of him as well.

The customs and traditions (white wedding dress, walking down the aisle, father giving the daughter away, it being “her special day”) have all revolved around the timeless unity that is man and wife. The union helps continue survival of the species. Of course not all couples get married for that reason today and don’t have to. And many partnerships today shun gender roles completely, but they still call it marriage.

I also could get married if I wanted. To be considered a marriage, as a man, I’d have to take a wife. I don’t want one… so therefore, I can’t get married.

I’m not going to speak for lesbians here, because I’m not one and don’t have any experience being a woman.

As someone who is same sex attracted, I fall in love with and primarily admire other men. Honestly, I love everything about men.

And what goes unsaid, is that there have been time tested rituals, oaths and sacrifices made — as described in Blood Brotherhood (another book, also by Donovan) — of the special relationship men have taken (albeit for the most part non-sexually) with each other. The idea being you lay down your life and are willing to take a bullet for your “blood brother.” In some circles and societies these relationships were more respected and of higher clout than a traditional marriage.

What Donovan, and I to an extent, are asking is why aren’t we creating and appropriating some sort of bond or union that reflects our unique relationship to one another, as two men? With of course, legal hospital visitation rights, property taxes, joint income tax relief — etc etc — that is undertaken by anyone who chooses to commit their life to one another.
Why do we have to take a tradition that’s not ours and try to appropriate it? Why not make our own? Something inspired and honored by the unique Mars/Mars combination that make up an intimate same-sex relationship. There is no woman in my relationship — yes opposites always attract — but that doesn’t make one of us the “girl.” I am a man. We are men — there is no bride. There is no wedding dress. My dad sure as hell isn’t giving me away to anyone. I choose to give my life for someone else.

Why not create something honorable, unique to our relationships with each other, that are – separate from marriages – but equal in the legal context. The problem with this whole ‘equality’ argument — is that it essentially gay sounds like spoiled brats who want something just because they can’t have it. I am gay, it is a behavioral trait —  I do not choose to feel desire for men — but I do choose to act on it. And I’m good with that. I take responsibility for it. No one owes me anything. I’m not a victim. I’m not oppressed. I’m not embarrassed. I’m not “proud” because I didn’t pass any test to be into dudes. I just am.

I’m a man who loves other men.

One day, I will meet a dude that I will want to lay down my life for. And him for me.

I’d love to have some sort of ceremony that honors that — perhaps without a minister or someone ordaining it — perhaps just between us. Perhaps no one will else will be around for that — where we will make a sacred, spiritual vow to defend each others honor, protect and care for each other, for the rest of our lives. I don’t need a priest or the state to bless my vow. It is my choice to align my life with another man.

And then we can go down to city hall, file some domestic partnership paperwork and be done with it. Or even get a lawyer to work out some finer details.

I don’t need the state or the government to approve of my life or my choices. All I’d like is to be able to be entitled to the same tax breaks as anyone else slugging it out in a partnership. But marriage? No, that wouldn’t be it was — it would feel weird and inorganic for me. I don’t want to be “married” to a dude — I want to, like Jonathan and David from the Bible, bind my soul to another. It’s for me and him to decide what that means and how it works.

I sincerely hope the Supreme Court doesn’t redefine ‘marriage’. And I say this as a gay men who isn’t ashamed of his sexuality. But it’s not all I am and all I want to be. There is so much more to me than that. I’m more a man than I am a ‘gay man.’

In fact, perhaps I will stop identifying as gay altogether.




  1. Bravo.

    Comment by Chris — May 1, 2013 @ 5:31 pm - May 1, 2013

  2. Your last line is what I find most interesting. I know you’re on Twitter and have a lot of followers, and despite that I know you are conservative, the fact that you identify yourself first and foremost as gay is why I haven’t followed you. Do heterosexuals overwhelmingly declare their sexual preference before anything else? What would be the point of declaring myself as straightsurfcitysocal unless I wanted my sexual preference to be the primary element by which I wanted people to identify me? The point is, it isn’t. And I don’t think it’s yours either.

    Comment by surfcitysocal — May 1, 2013 @ 6:13 pm - May 1, 2013

  3. Wonderful. You’ve said it extraordinarily eloquently.

    Comment by American Patriot — May 1, 2013 @ 6:48 pm - May 1, 2013

  4. I have these relationships with men. I was fortunate enough to be able to serve as a marine, and have brothers who I would lay down my life for and they for me. These are stronger and more profound than the relationships I have with the women in my life. I was married and have children, but I prefer the company of men. I prefer to lay with women. As he says these are behavioral, not definitive traits. Men should behave as men.

    Comment by Coleblue — May 1, 2013 @ 7:11 pm - May 1, 2013

  5. Hi Surfcity social, are you referring to me? I am not on twitter, I deleted my account about 8 months ago. And the only by-line I had then was “I Plead The 10th” so I’m not sure who you are referring to…

    Comment by LJ — May 1, 2013 @ 8:51 pm - May 1, 2013

  6. #2 – Please pay attention. I didn’t write this. It is a GUEST POST.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — May 1, 2013 @ 9:07 pm - May 1, 2013

  7. LJ Regine – you piqued my interest so I checked out & saw the author responded to a review and I just had to comment:

    THEN I read your guest post. I didn’t understand why gays wanted to appropriate marriage until it dawned on me – acceptance. I agree with you – be yourself and those worth your time will accept you, and you them. It’s life. Nobody should {or really, should even want} people ordered to “like” you!

    Comment by Amy Shulkusky — May 1, 2013 @ 9:28 pm - May 1, 2013

  8. “I don’t need the state or the government to approve of my life or my choices. All I’d like is to be able to be entitled to the same tax breaks as anyone else slugging it out in a partnership.”

    Great! So, the next question is, what are you doing to insist that state governments rewrite their constitutions so you are allowed to have same sex domestic partnerships?

    I see so many people on this site a say they have no problems with same sex civil unions, but I see no republicans forceful advocating for it.

    Comment by mike — May 1, 2013 @ 10:52 pm - May 1, 2013

  9. Well said, sir. Donovan has had a big impact on me, as well.

    Comment by EssEm — May 1, 2013 @ 10:52 pm - May 1, 2013

  10. I see so many people on this site a say they have no problems with same sex civil unions, but I see no republicans forceful advocating for it.

    Why advocate when the Democrats do all the leg work for marriage equality?

    Comment by VS — May 1, 2013 @ 11:19 pm - May 1, 2013

  11. If it wasn’t for money, they DNC wouldn’t be doing it.

    Comment by Douglas — May 1, 2013 @ 11:33 pm - May 1, 2013

  12. you can have any kind of ceremony that you want to but why not just get the same marriage license that the state issues to everybody else instead of inventing some new-fangled separate-but-equal thingamabob ? it’s the simplest way to designate your ‘spouse’ for legal purposes like inheritance, etc. you can call yourself married or unioned or manned-up or whatever the heck you want to but ‘the piece of paper’ on file will be the same one that’s already commonly used and understood.
    p.s….that donovan dude has a long and shameful history of writing nasty things about his fellow gay men (can you say self-hating?). it’s not necessary to reject ‘gayness’ in order to be the man that you already are. you can just be yourself without using any of the tortured ‘reasoning’ that donovan advocates.

    Comment by el polacko — May 2, 2013 @ 2:25 am - May 2, 2013

  13. It is refreshing to see a gay conservative writer acknowledge that the tax code needs to be changed. And an important point is brought out in this post: a relationship is defined by the people in it.

    Actually, there is no need to fear that the Supreme Court, or any other government entity, will “redefine” marriage. They never defined it in the first place. Regardless of what our strutting and posturing potentates claim, that is not something they ever had — or ever could have — the power to do.

    They have the power to issue proclamations and pronouncements. They have the power to take our money, kick our doors down in the middle of the night and drag us off to jail, or kill us. We gave them those powers — they are illegitimately theirs, and were unwisely given by us. And we can take them back any time we decide.

    Government does not magically make things come into being or erase them. God does that. And human society makes changes, gradually and organically, over time. Marriage has been redefined over the centuries, as society changed. It will continue to do this. The emperor has no clothes.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 2, 2013 @ 3:49 am - May 2, 2013

  14. Comment by Lori Heine — May 2, 2013 @ 3:49 am – May 2, 2013

    Lori, well said. But, wait until the Supreme Court does rule on gay marriage at the end of June. There is going to be usual bitching and moaning on both sides of this issue.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — May 2, 2013 @ 6:34 am - May 2, 2013

  15. Agree 100% with this.

    Comment by MV — May 2, 2013 @ 10:16 am - May 2, 2013

  16. Immigration Reform and the GOP’s Anti-Gay Suicide Mission
    by Jonathan Rauch May 2, 2013 4:45 AM EDT
    Blocking immigration reform because of a provision to let gay Americans sponsor their partners’ green cards is not only wrong, it’s just plain stupid, writes Jonathan Rauch.

    Comment by rusty — May 2, 2013 @ 11:44 am - May 2, 2013

  17. Well, since rusty is trying to hijack a thread – again – with a totally irrelevant article, I believe in fighting fire with fire:

    Deal with it.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 2, 2013 @ 12:55 pm - May 2, 2013

  18. Gay marriage is a lie. But she seems to be arguing for polygamy, as that’s ‘her reality’.

    Comment by Ignatius — May 2, 2013 @ 1:50 pm - May 2, 2013

  19. This is clearly a heartfelt piece, though thoughtful, not so much. It has only come to my attention from a fellow share and I read with interest for that reason. I would simply like to refute a number of contradictions I find important enough to comment on.

    First, many men and women for many years have fought the stigma of the negative terminology “MAN AND WIFE” used in weddings. It has cast the woman in the role of chattel, as a thing and not a person, unlike her ‘man’ – with the preferred term being “husband and wife.”

    I take issue with the idea that procreation needs any kind of union to ‘help it along.’ With seven billion people in the world and counting, we need only look to the numbers of aborted babies to know this is not at issue. Yes, at one time it was. Many thousands of years ago, the effort was made to encourage the few to go forth and multiply in order to populate the earth. We have done very well at this with or without a union for quite some time now.

    As respects this part, “And many partnerships today shun gender roles completely, but they still call it marriage.” Then what exactly is the point of this piece?

    To a subtler point, and one that should rise to the top as most significant overall, the concept of ‘blood brothers.’ Men, above all creatures, perhaps due to their abilities, perhaps due to an innate sense of honor, but I know that the depth of heart with all its feeling and compassion, have the greatest ability to bond with another and to abide this pact of LIFE.

    Men are given short-shrift for their allegiance to LIFE and all that it represents. When God professed his love of man, there was no discount: It was total love for all that he possesses. Man is God’s first bestowal to humankind and in this, He was clear in man’s perfection.

    Oddly, when we consider the attention paid to the woman in a Jewish marriage ceremony, in a sense we could say that man projects his God-given qualities upon her, as though declaring, “I am as you and you are as me.” One and the same. Make of our hearts, one heart. The most beautiful expression of the bonding of two people there is – yet no less powerful for how man feels at the root of his being regardless of the occasion, the moment, the person or thing.

    Man is perfect. He just doesn’t always know it.

    Woman, on the other hand, could stand to remember the delicacy of the nature of what gives man his seemingly immortal strength and try once again to revere this.

    As far as not needing a priest, again this is drawing in aspects to do with the ceremony itself. Having the bond between a man and a woman recognized by God still holds significance amongst the few left on earth who enjoy this relationship, but religiosity has suffered the effort of separation from our daily lives. Whether that’s for PC or political purposes, people have suffered the absence of the protocols and formality, the ritual that is in place for the purpose of exercising our recognition of God. We need to be reminded.

    In addition, swearing before God, the church and witnesses is a powerful way to instill the significance of the marriage, the contract, and to get things off on the right foot. Where community used to mean much more than it does today, there was agreement and shame delivered by those who actually had a right to their opinion, as such things as marriage have an impact upon society.

    I get confused in this piece when the desire is to do away with the conventions of marriage and then bring them back again by getting “a lawyer to work out some finer details.” Please. Either or; either you want to play or you don’t, but don’t do the wishy-washy, picky-choosy thingy. You lose my respect when you want to erase the chalk lines you create to suit yourself.

    Which brings us back to why the issue has hit the Supreme Court at all. The indelible lines are being redefined. This is how society works. Slowly, but it eventually works.

    Man is a noble creature. He has never stopped, but on occasion, he needs to be reminded.

    Comment by Elizabeth — May 2, 2013 @ 2:47 pm - May 2, 2013

  20. LJ Regine, read “Iron John” by Robert Bly, and spend a weekend in the woods beating on drums. Then go kill your dinner with a bow, and gut it. Savor a bit of the heart/liver. Seriously, “dude,” stop overthinking your life. Sheesh, American men have the most delicate psycho-sexual self-images on the planet.

    Comment by Mike Roberts — May 2, 2013 @ 2:53 pm - May 2, 2013

  21. I argued for “twainage” decades ago — a whole new word just for us — everyone thought I was crazy.

    Civil unions doesn’t work because it can’t be a verb – did you get civil unioned today? Doesn’t work. Marriage raises to many hackles — not worth the fight.

    Twain is the old Saxon English for “masculine two” — it means two — and so my spouse can be my twain. We were twained yesterday. And our twainage is registered at Bed & Bath Co. — The word exists, is not used. Comes with no baggage, requires no major change to concept. Eliminates the poly-people from the equation — for it’s Two.

    About the only people who could complain would be the Mark Twain fans.

    Comment by Jim Hlavac — May 2, 2013 @ 3:39 pm - May 2, 2013

  22. #19 — “I get confused in this piece when the desire is to do away with the conventions of marriage and then bring them back again by getting ‘a lawyer to work out some finer details.’ Please.”

    Please, indeed. The lawyer lobby needs our help to milk us of more money?

    It’s good to know we can drop tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to get protections otherwise denied us. Good for the attorneys, that is. Poor attorneys. I guess they need all the help they can get.

    Wealthy gay men may be able to afford this, but lesbians — who need at least the protection of civil unions, and who are also most likely to want them — well, screw us. We don’t make boatloads of money, so we don’t matter.

    Why are basic human rights, like hospital visitations, tied to hetero marriage in the first place? Who gave the government the right to arrogate such decisions? Why MUST something as basic as the ability to choose — for crying out loud — whom you want to entrust with your medical decisions if you’re incapacitated be thrown to the wolves of the legal profession?

    And again, why is the tax code being abused to redistribute wealth according to the dictates of yet another claque of Those Who Know Better?

    The post attempted to deal with some of this. And again, marriage is defined by people — and what they make of it. It is NOT within the power of government to do that, no matter who runs it.

    Ah, the idolatrous worship given all-wise, all-powerful Uncle Santa. That anybody gets away with claiming such a mentality is “conservative” only shows how Orwellian our political discourse has become.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 2, 2013 @ 3:48 pm - May 2, 2013

  23. Frankly, it is just a matter of time before gay marriage is recognized in this country. The social conservatives even know they have lost this battle. I certainly don’t think that the Supreme Court will make it the law of the land in their ruling at the end of June.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — May 2, 2013 @ 4:02 pm - May 2, 2013

  24. Lori:

    If you read this, I have a few questions that I’d like to ask you so that I can understand what the libertarian/Libertarian positions (if there’s a distinction) are on these matters.

    If state governments stop officially registering marriages, then:

    –Who gets to adopt?
    –How are child support and child custody issues determined?
    –Regarding a private company’s health care plans — whom will those cover?
    –Who has legal authority to issue “do not resuscitate” orders to doctors?
    –Who inherits in the absence of a will?
    –Who is entitled to a person’s Social Security and Medicare benefits?
    –How do you know if you’re divorced and able to remarry?

    Full disclosure: these are questions posed in a column written by (Oh Lord, NO!!) Ann Coulter that I read some months back.
    They’re all important questions to ask and get sane answers to, but I don’t remember seeing these issues addressed in any discussion of ‘gay marriage’ (around here, anyway).

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 2, 2013 @ 4:03 pm - May 2, 2013

  25. Jman, the answer to all of those questions is, Why do state governments need to register marriages for any of those things to happen in the first place?

    All of those decisions can be made by — and should be left to — the individuals involved. No one-size-fits-all rules should be imposed on them by government at any level.

    Would this need to be registered somewhere “official?” Certainly. As one of the (very few) legitimate functions of government is protecting citizens from force or fraud, government would probably even still be the place to do this.

    How does this translate into letting government “define” what our relationships are, place heavy-handed restrictions on them, reach into various citizens’ pockets to take more and more of they money and redistribute it to others (on the basis of decisions that belong to individual citizens and were never the government’s business in the first place), etc.?

    Ann Coulter’s problem is that she is a statist. Some gay conservatives get all starry-eyed about her because she does things like condescend to speak at HomoCon. She is a statist. In the things she says, she has demonstrated time and time again that she cannot fathom an America in which Government does not make all our decisions for us. Or at least those decisions she thinks it ought to make.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 2, 2013 @ 4:26 pm - May 2, 2013

  26. I guess I should further clarify my last comments. Registering something need not mean regulating it. Not if the registration were done for the purposes of protecting the rights of those involved. Regulations may be enacted on the pretense of protection, but are really more about control.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 2, 2013 @ 4:28 pm - May 2, 2013

  27. #25 — “They” money. I don’t know what’s up with that. Goober Pyle did not write that.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 2, 2013 @ 4:30 pm - May 2, 2013

  28. LJ Regine kudos to you for such a refreshing and honest expression of a gay reality.
    Also kudos to the Gay Patriot for publishing this essay.
    It seems so totally devoid of any taint of PC that I wonder admiringly how you keep that PC from infecting your language and thinking.
    I fight it all the time.
    I even left So Cal for Utah to get away from the deluge of PC there.
    I hope you find a life partner some day soon.

    Comment by Nan G — May 2, 2013 @ 4:32 pm - May 2, 2013

  29. Another attempt to clarify. When we register something, we are telling what WE want done. When government regulates, it is telling us we must do what IT wants.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 2, 2013 @ 4:32 pm - May 2, 2013

  30. Thanks for the fast response, Lori. :)

    Just a couple more things, if that’s OK?

    You first said this:

    All of those decisions can be made by — and should be left to — the individuals involved.

    And then you said this:

    Would this need to be registered somewhere “official?” Certainly. As one of the (very few) legitimate functions of government is protecting citizens from force or fraud, government would probably even still be the place to do this.

    These two things are mutually exclusive. Which one is the ‘libertarian’ position?
    It’s one thing to talk about visiting a friend who’s sick or dying in the hospital, and it’s important. It’s another thing to determine who should have the legal authority to issue a DNR. The latter is far more important and can’t just be left to individuals to work out amongst themselves.
    As you no doubt know, there can be, and are on occasion, tremendous legal battles fought over these issues (and the others that were listed) because these things can be in dispute, and I, for one, don’t think that it’s a good idea to leave it entirely to the individuals involved.
    And that’s why we have laws; we can’t maintain the ‘civil society’ if everyone gets to decide for themselves just what legal framework they’re willing to work within on any given day.

    How does this translate into letting government “define” what our relationships are…

    I never said anything about this.
    But I’d like to point out that government(s) do this, in fact, in some places where they absolutely should be doing it: or are we saying that we’ll have no prohibitions on adult/minor relationships and adopt the NAMBLA agenda?

    I’m with you 100% on the ‘ginning up’ of the tax code, relative to marriage. All that should be abolished.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 2, 2013 @ 5:02 pm - May 2, 2013

  31. Jman, I made a couple of additional comments after the one to which you responded. See #29.

    There is a difference, I repeat, between (A) registering our wishes with a government whose duty is to protect us from force and fraud and (B) that government overstepping its bounds by regulating our personal choices — thereby forcing its wishes on us.

    I didn’t read the Ann Coulter piece you referenced, but I’m figuring it was more of the “which-shell-is-the-pea-under-now?” business at which she excels, blurring the difference between registration and regulation.

    The tremendous legal battles of which you are afraid would be prevented if we could, indeed, REGISTER our decisions about our own lives. That way, the government could perform its legitimate function of protecting us from force and fraud. We shouldn’t have to go to court and pay bazillions to lawyers to protect ourselves in (the few legitimate) ways government is supposed to be doing it.

    And what has NAMBLA to do with that? Would not a government doing its legitimate duty — protecting us from force and fraud — protect minors from sexual exploitation by adults? If you understand my argument, I can’t fathom how how might imagine NAMBLA would profit if government did what it is legitimately supposed to be doing.

    Statists don’t understand the difference between the legitimate functions of government and those it illegitimately usurps for itself. I know you understand the difference, just as I do. we shouldn’t be taken in when the Ann Coulter crowd starts shrieking at us about NAMBLA.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 2, 2013 @ 5:26 pm - May 2, 2013

  32. (W)e shouldn’t be taken in when the Ann Coulter crowd starts shrieking at us about NAMBLA.

    She didn’t say anything about NAMBLA in that piece.

    That was me being hyperbolic. 8)

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 2, 2013 @ 5:33 pm - May 2, 2013

  33. I’m bummed out….they took away the smiley with sunglasses.



    Comment by Jman1961 — May 2, 2013 @ 5:37 pm - May 2, 2013

  34. The smiley is goggle-eyed from it all. Or are those what they call “beer goggles?”

    Another thought occurs to me, Jman. I think of that expression “Follow the money.”

    How many of the politicians who oppose civil unions are attorneys in private life? How many more receive contributions from trial attorneys?

    Could that not have something to do with the fact that government has hijacked from us even basic rights, like hospital visitations, medical decisions, and the like? Might that not be why these social conservative “family values” warriors are holding these rights hostage in the name of “protecting the family?”

    The only families they’re likely interested in protecting are their own. Junior’s first car needs to be a sporty little Mercedes convertible. And of course Little Buffy needs to go to Yale. Thus must rights that we should be able to register — according to our own wishes, regardless of whether we’re gay, straight, married or single — are indeed held hostage by hetero married couples who can avail themselves of the full benefits of the law?

    How much of this supposed concern for the sanctity of marriage is actually driven by a desire for money? I would bet quite a bit.

    Let’s follow the money.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 2, 2013 @ 6:18 pm - May 2, 2013

  35. Well, like so many things in this society, the law (its implementation, interpretation and enforcement) has been bastardized by lawyers, politicians, judges and law enforcement…….but mostly by lawyers.

    Does it strike anyone as funny how lawyers fees and rates of compensation (expressed in ‘contingent fee agreements’) are so uniform from one shyster to the next?
    Ever know of a case where there was a lawyer who told you that he/she would only retain (re: your tort), say, 15% of a settlement, 20% of a judge/jury verdict, and 25% on an appeal, as opposed to the (nearly) universal 33%, 40%, and 45%?
    It’s likely you haven’t, and it’s a neat little racket, since who could ever imagine a lawyer suing his colleagues for what amounts to ‘collusion’.
    It’s why I dropped the notion of being an attorney just as I got to college, realizing at the time how corrupt the profession was, I’d have wanted to specialize in suing the snot out of other lawyers. At that age I wasn’t keen on the idea of hanging a shingle that read: ‘JMan – Attorney-at-Law and Pariah in the Legal Community’.

    But this is what we get for our idolatry of law (we have far too many laws on the books) and the ‘high priests’ in who’s oily little hands we place it and entrust its fair and judicious practice.

    I like the registry idea; it makes sense.
    Personally, I’d like to see civil unions for consenting adults, and leaving marriage as a primarily religious institution.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 2, 2013 @ 8:21 pm - May 2, 2013

  36. I argued for “twainage” decades ago — a whole new word just for us — everyone thought I was crazy.

    I like it!

    I’ve also suggested, in the past, “to get gilgameshed” for male/male couples — which, of course, could be shortened to “get ‘meshed.”

    In any case, I agree with the general point that, maybe male/male couples, female/female couples, and male/female couples are significantly different in their dynamics that there ought to be three separate terms for the unions.

    I also think that it’s totally retarded to obsess over the point that some folks think us inferior to heterosexuals, and instead deal with with the practical issue of getting the dagnab gummint to recognize that a non-procreative same-sex partnership can still effectively create a KINSHIP BOND between two persons who aren’t literally blood kin.

    THAT is the simple principle we should be fighting for — that the government which takes our taxes is obligated to recognize our chosen kinships, even though other taxpayers might consider our form of kinship-bond to be non-traditional.

    All this “Waaah, I’m a second-class citizen if the government recognizes my union but doesn’t call it by the word marriage!!” stuff is tiresome.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — May 2, 2013 @ 8:41 pm - May 2, 2013

  37. “I wasn’t keen on the idea of hanging a shingle that read: ‘JMan – Attorney-at-Law and Pariah in the Legal Community’.”

    That sounds like a good concept for a television series. Might be a good idea to develop it. Who knows — a producer might get interested.

    But you’re right. It is a neat little racket. And why do the shysters need cheesy late-night commercials when they’ve got “conservative” pundits to do their shilling for them? I don’t know how many times I’ve heard people like Ann Coulter (who, probably not coincidentally, has a law degree herself) lecture gays that we don’t need marriage or civil unions because we “can always go to a lawyer and get something drawn up.”

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 2, 2013 @ 8:46 pm - May 2, 2013

  38. p.s….that donovan dude has a long and shameful history of writing nasty things about his fellow gay men (can you say self-hating?).

    It would be “self hating” if he wrote nasty things about gay men who were similar to him.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — May 2, 2013 @ 8:48 pm - May 2, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.