Get a grip, Mr. Aravosis

Russell Saunders

Russell Saunders is the ridiculously flimsy pseudonym of a pediatrician in New England. He has a husband, three sons, daughter, cat and dog, though not in that order. He enjoys reading, running and cooking. He can be contacted at blindeddoc using his Gmail account. Twitter types can follow him @russellsaunder1.

Related Post Roulette

81 Responses

  1. BlaiseP says:

    C’mon, Dr. Saunders. As with DADT, this is half a loaf when a whole loaf is needed. No denying it. “Justice too long delayed is justice denied” — MLK, ascribing it to some unnamed jurist but it was probably from Magna Carta: “To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.”

    Yes, I suppose we must still put up with the goddamn Republicans staving off the inevitable, delaying justice, as we have so many endured their petty spite and wickedness so many times before. We tolerate the immigration of polygamous families with a wink and a nod — but to our own, no such flexibility is afforded them.

    You’re right, I suppose, in saying Aravosis has overstepped. If he has, it’s by blaming the wrong bunch of politicians. At some point, though, the bony finger of condemnation must be pointed at the truly guilty party, the Grand Olde Party.Report

    • I’m not saying this is acceptable or that we should all just shrug and say “Well, them’s the brakes.” Keep fighting for UAFA, if not this time around then the next time, by all means!

      But the provision was not pulled because Feinstein et al are homophobes, and labeling them thus is unmitigated bullshit. It is an insult to the victims of actual anti-gay violence to conflate a political loss in an exceptionally dicey fight over a largely unrelated and itself quite inflammatory issue with their suffering. Demanding the inclusion of UAFA even if it means the entire bill dies an inglorious death is making the perfect the enemy of the good, and demanding that our issues must always have primacy in any policy debate that glances against them. It will win us no friends, and possibly create enemies.Report

      • BlaiseP in reply to Russell Saunders says:

        The Democrats have not exactly distinguished themselves. I believe the adjective I’m looking for here is Craven. You’re a better, more patient man than I seem to be. Personally, I’m enraged by the Democrats capitulating at every opportunity.

        In the 1970s, the French had a light battle tank, I saw it at the Grafenwoehr training area in what was then West Germany. It had two driver’s compartments: one at each end. That, Dr. Saunders, is the Democratic Party’s paradigm for legislative success: always leaving themselves the option of a high-speed retreat.Report

        • Sure, fine. Call them craven. (I used that very word in the OP!) I doubt it will be particularly effective, but at least it’s a more accurate description of the phenomenon at hand.Report

          • BlaiseP in reply to Russell Saunders says:

            Oh, I know, which is why I chose it. But I don’t sense that I’m waxing splenetic in using that adjective. Just calling a spade a spade. The correct naming of things is more important than some people suppose.

            Aravosis says this is HCR all over again. Absolutely right. Speaking only as someone who periodically maintains the rulesets for BCBS health care claims, Obama’s reforms were reduced to a vast Gimme Scheme for the health insurers — perhaps you could enlighten me a bit on how ACA has impacted you. My guess is, it’s still as horrid as ever. We’ve had this discussion before, I know I’m preaching to the choir here. Still, it’s as Aravosis says:

            As you recall, during health care reform (and the stimulus) we were constantly told that Republicans, and conservative Dems, were opposed to the public option, so there was no point in trying to push for it. But the logical fallacy the Democrats faced was that we’d never know how strong the GOP truly opposed the public option, something that polled at 70% favorability, if we didn’t at least try to fight for it. You’d be amazed at the magic a little fight can bring to the table.

            I’m sincerely of the opinion the Democrats did not fight hard enough for LGBT rights, not on this bill. They’re serving up the same sort of watered-down gruel they’ve been doling out for years now: half-o’-this and none-o’-that. We still don’t have LGBT equality and even if this bill had gone down to defeat, a proposition I sincerely doubt, what with the groundswell of outrage now emerging from ordinary people who are sick of such obvious inequality for our fellow LGBT citizens, it wouldn’t feature all these dingleberries of stinking injustice, fetid little lacunae of bigotry.

            Sens. Schumer, Robert Menendez and Dick Durbin convened a conference call with gay rights groups to inform them that the legislation — at least the initial bill — will not include language to address LGBT concerns, a source familiar with the call told POLITICO.

            The bus is right on time and the Democrats have once again deftly pushed their LGBT constituency under that bus — I don’t care how much they blame the GOP for it. They could, at least, have let the Republicans say it.Report

          • BlaiseP in reply to Russell Saunders says:

            The distressingly awful part of this, Dr. Saunders, resolves to this fact: the Democrats hope to gain votes for this bill from the GOP by tolerating prejudice against same-sex couples. They won’t get any votes, any more than they got votes for ACA. The President and the Democrats watered down ACA like an evil bartender watering down well whiskey in hopes of getting a few GOP votes. How did that work out?Report

            • I won’t argue that it’s not blinkered as far as political strategy goes, or that the tactic of preemptive appeasement is anything other than a repetitive failure. I agree.

              What it ain’t is gay-bashing, nor are the perpetrators homophobes.Report

              • BlaiseP in reply to Russell Saunders says:

                So stipulated. They aren’t homophobes. I never meant to imply they were. But Dr. Blaise would recommend a Boston Brace for those Democrats, the better to cope with their idiopathic scoliosis of the conscience.Report

  2. j@m3z Aitch. says:

    It’s easy to make absolutist demands when one isn’t the one who actually has to make the decision.

    The logic here is simple, if unpleasant, for those actually trying to get immigration reform passed. The Democrats preference order is:
    the bill with UAFA > the bill without UAFA > no bill.

    The Republicans preference order is:
    no bill >= the bill without UAFA > bill with UAFA.

    So the Dems’ best outcome is the Republicans’ worst outcome. And the Republicans are in a position to ensure they don’t get their worst outcome, which means they can ensure the Dems don’t get their best outcome.

    So the bill with UAFA is , strategically, off the table. It should no longer be a part of the Dems’ strategic logic. Their only choice now is the bill without UAFA or no bill. If they insist on trying for their best outcome all they’ll do is ensure they achieve their own worst outcome.

    It’s easy to moralize, and condemn them as weak, but to do so ignores the strategic situation.

    In other words, the Doc is right.Report

  3. Kazzy says:

    Are we sure that offering immigration preference (or whatever it is) to binational couples is desirable?

    Are sure that the ideal situation is extending this privilege to same-sex couples instead of removing it from opposite sex couples?

    Please note: The answer to either question does not, in any way, justify differentiated treatment of couples based on sexual orientation with regards to this privilege. Whatever route we determine is best out to be applied without regard to sexual orientation.Report

    • Kazzy in reply to Kazzy says:

      And for fear of threadjacking, I ask these questions not because I want to turn away from the good doctor’s very excellent point and towards a conversation of the topic at large, but because there might be an alternative motive for some folks: those who want to reform immigration without including special preferences for couples and see UAFA as an expansion of a problem in the name of equity when their preferred course of action might be eliminating that problem altogether.

      I could be dead wrong… but it seems worth considering.Report

      • Russell Saunders in reply to Kazzy says:

        I think you are being too generous to those who oppose UAFA outright. My guess is that their opposition is predicated entirely on not wanting any benefits that seem marriage-life to accrue to same-sex couples, and not at all on any desire to reform immigration laws for opposite-sex married couples.Report

        • Kazzy in reply to Russell Saunders says:


          Allow me to clarify. I’m speaking of Dems who supported the UAFA free bill. Is it possible that at least some of them might prefer to eliminate this privilege entirely? I’m offering it is another alternative to the “homophobic” slurs.Report

          • Russell Saunders in reply to Kazzy says:

            I suppose it’s possible, though I’ve never seen anyone advocate for that particular policy change. Further, I imagine it would be massively unpopular.Report

          • BlaiseP in reply to Kazzy says:

            Here’s the thing, Kazzy — I went through the process of naturalising a wife. You see, I married an erstwhile illegal alien. She had to return to Guatemala, then re-enter, this time legally.

            Insofar as the USA recognises a marriage, thus creating a legal category called an “immediate relative” for the spouse, it allows them to apply for a Green Card. (I don’t know why they call it Green Card, it’s not green. ) We’ve now created a situation where we have a two-tier system: marriage is not a sufficient requirement for Immediate Relative status. Previously, it had be a M-F marriage because of DOMA. But DOMA’s been repealed. Why then should US immigration policy enforce a dead law, or through inaction, allow this policy to continue in the absence of any binding statute to that effect?Report

            • I do not believe that DOMA has been repealed.

              I’m not actually sure of what immigration law would pertain re: legally-married same-sex couples if SCOTUS scraps DOMA. I would hope that for legally-married couples, they would get the same rights as opposite-sex couples. I suspect UAFA would have more weight for couples living in states without marriage equality.

              But I’m no expert on the law, and would welcome input from someone with more expertise.Report

              • BlaiseP in reply to Russell Saunders says:

                What was I thinking? I am stupid. Of course DOMA hasn’t been repealed but I’m betting it will be ruled invalid in Hollingsworth. I’m jumping the gun on DOMA but the entire locus of the Prop 8 debate has shifted to the validity of marriage licenses, already granted by many states. There’s no way SCOTUS can say those states’ licenses are any less valid than other states which don’t grant SSM licences.Report

              • North in reply to BlaiseP says:

                From your lips to God(ess?)’s ears BlaiseP.Report

              • Blaise,

                I sure hope you’re right about DOMA being on the verge of invalidation by SCOTUS. But I’m not too optimistic.Report

      • LeeEsq in reply to Kazzy says:

        Kazzy, so you want to create a system where American citizens are basically only able to marry other American citizens?Report

        • Kazzy in reply to LeeEsq says:


          I asked that question very, very genuinely. I don’t know what is right. There seems to be an assumption that offering immigration preference to spouses is the right thing to do and, as such, we should extend that to same sex spouses. Which very well might be the right course of action (I’m inclined to think it is, but I don’t know much about immigration law). However, I also don’t like assumptions, so I think it important to examine if that is indeed the preferred route and, if so, how we might go about responding to people who disagree in general with spousal privilege in immigration.Report

          • trumwill in reply to Kazzy says:

            Well, I think the only two other options are (a) open borders, so everybody has the ability to immigrate like spouses, or (b) suggesting people that marry live in the spouse’s country.

            I don’t think many people would advocate for (b). Are there any countries that do this? Excluding countries like maybe North Korea?

            A lot of people (around here, in particular) do advocate for (a), but it’s also not something most countries have as a realistic possibility.Report

            • Kazzy in reply to trumwill says:

              If I were to be in favor of a system that said anyone can immigrate to America provided A) they can document who they are* and B) they can document that they are not actively or recently engaged in criminal activity** and that, upon a set period of time after immigrating (say, 3 years?) during which they comported with all laws, regulations, and expectations, were extended the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship, would that make me an open borders person?

              * I recognize that there are certain countries and/or areas of the world where this is near impossible. In those cases, we’d need to come up with another system to not unfairly prejudice against these people due to their local government’s failures with record keeping.
              ** “Criminal activity” is tricky to define. For instance, I would not bar someone who was wanted in their home country for speaking ill of the government. That might be criminal where they are from but is not criminal here (not yet, at least) and should not be held against them. On the other hand, I wouldn’t bar a stoner from Amsterdam provided he agreed to abide by our drug laws while here.Report

            • Shazbot5 in reply to trumwill says:

              Couldn’t there also be a c..?

              C. A panel of immigration officers decides if you have an important connection to that immigrant that means you need that person in the U.S. if you are to live with any kind of happiness in the U.S.

              That panel would look at all the evidence that they currently look for with married couple: sworn statements from your friends that you and the immigrant are close, a history of financial ties in bank statements, etc. old pictures, an interview where you talk about how long you’ve known each other, sworn statements to take care of each other financially, etc.

              The devil would be in the detail, but they already have such panels to test to see who really is married and who isn’t, so they could test to see who really is “inseparable friends who live together and need each other” and who isn’t.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Shazbot5 says:

                Well, yea, until John over there shows up with pictures of him and Chimpo the Monkey opening a bank account together.

                Seriously, as much as I struggle with the idea of the government adjudicating who is and who is not in love, this is better than a discriminatory policy. I think.

                There are many loveless marriages out there, for one reason or another. Why deny gay folks the opportunity to sit coldly in the dark wishing the person next to them was someone else?Report

              • trumwill mobile in reply to Shazbot5 says:

                Fair enough, Shaz. My fear with that is that it would drag what is already a bureaucratic slog into something worse. I think limiting it to marriage moves things along. But that would be another option. As would simply allowing every citizen to sponsor one single foreign national regardless ofrelationship.Report

              • Shazbot5 in reply to trumwill mobile says:

                Yeah, that is exactly right. Marriage is a proxy for “need each other.” It’s bureaucraticakk easier to let only married people in, but less fair (and really hard) to allow nontraditional relationships where two people need each other.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

      Ask yourself: who is the most likely to marry binationally? Is there a group that is a lot more likely to do this than any other?

      I’m guessing that the number one group that marries binationally is… soldiers around the age of “just out of high school” who have been deployed. I’d be surprised if the numbers were such that this group would be a plurality rather than a straight majority.

      As such, the politician who suggested that immigration rule would, effectively, be attacked by opponents for taking a stand against our Armed Forces.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

        Curiously, I would not make that same guess. But I really don’t know. Most of the service members I know are officers and are experiencing military life (and life in general) very differently than the enlisted.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

          Well, how’s this? When I did work with my INS Liaison back in the 90’s, she said that the majority of her work was with soldiers. Now, of course, we’ve got 5 military installations within a stone’s throw of where I sit (Peterson, Schriever, Ft. Carson, Cheyenne Mtn, Air Force Academy) and so, sure, that’s probably what she *WOULD* see…

          But I’m guessing that the majority of binational marriages are to a military person anyway. I can’t imagine the Russian Bride folks (to pick another group) would be ahead of them.Report

          • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

            Oh, I’m not saying I’m right. But if you posed that question and did not offer your guess, I don’t think I would have made that guess.

            But I’ve been wrong before. Once. September 4, 1997. Weird day.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

              Now I’m curious. I don’t even know how I’d go about phrasing the question meaningfully to the google.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

                I’m curious as well. I’d venture to guess that, on the whole, folks involved in binational marriages would skew liberal… but that is based on a number of rather unsavory assumptions and stereotypes.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

                Well, here are my assumptions. Tell me how wrong/backward they are. Whatever.

                Americans are most likely to marry someone they hang out with and fool around with. While there might be a handful of “get them over here” arranged marriages between two people who don’t know each other that well, the majority of marriages are between people who do. Or think they do.

                This means that the most spousal immigrations are going to be from people who spend their unmarried days abroad and there are two groups of people who do that: soldiers and college students who spend a year (or more) abroad.

                And there are cultural assumptions about marriage made by people who enter the military and there are cultural assumptions about marriage made by people who go to colleges where they are expected to travel abroad. And there is less overlap between these assumptions than you’d think.

                I realize that, beyond this, the assumptions grow weedier so I’ll stop there.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

                My assumptions are far weedier and it is those that I refer to as “unsavory”.

                Liberals tend to be more open to foreigners. We basically want everyone to be European, right? Meanwhile, conservatives are all pretty jingoistic and/or xenophobic.

                Meeting someone who lives abroad usually means traveling abroad. That is pricey. Liberals tend to be wealthier than conservatives.

                A binational marriage is more likely to be interracial, interethnic, or interfaith than a domestic marriage. Well, we know which side of the aisle demonstrates greater comfort with those things.

                I don’t find your assumptions bothersome at all. It is my own that I am uncomfortable with. But if you simply asked me, point blank, “Which side of the aisle is more likely to engage in a binational marriage?” I would tend to think elite liberals. And those are the reasons why.

                But, yea, I kinda hope I’m wrong. I hope it is more complicated than that and/or less predictable than that.Report

          • greginak in reply to Jaybird says:

            It would surprise me if most bi-national marriages were with military. I’d guess it would be recent or 1st gen immigrants marrying people from their old countries or other places. People who already have connections to a foreign country would be most likely find a foreign mate. It’s entirely possible for military folks stationed oversees to avoid meeting any people from the country they are in. i’ve known some who did so. Also in the last 15 years the meetings our military has had with foreign peeps have been less friendly then in the 90’s.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to greginak says:

              Oh, I don’t suspect that Iraqi or Afghani wives are near the top… I’m more thinking about people deployed to, in no particular order, South Korea, Germany, Japan, the Philippines…Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

                FWIW, most folks in those countries aren’t on “deployment” but rather have their PDS (permanent duty station) there. PDSs typically last 3 to 4 years; deployments are more along the lines of 7-12 months.

                Based on the experiences of Zazzy, her friends, and some of my friends, you are far more likely to meet someone at your PDS (which can be domestic or international… Zazzy was in Bethesda, MD) than during your deployment (which are always international… Zazzy’s was in Kuwait).Report

        • Patrick in reply to Kazzy says:

          I’m pretty sure Jaybird is right.Report

  4. Miss Mary says:

    Well saidReport

  5. Art Deco says:

    “We won’t make much more by acting like petulant second-graders. ”

    That’s identity politics. Ain’t no other sort.Report

  6. Jaybird says:

    I know how much my life has been improved by me being able to import my Canadian Bride into the US. I like to think that the taxes that both of us have paid since this has happened have paid for the amount of roads that we use and have purchased enough carbon offsets to cover our carbon footprint.

    The thought that other folks shouldn’t be allow to import their life partners is downright maddening.Report

    • Kolohe in reply to Jaybird says:

      “I know how much my life has been improved by me being able to import my Canadian Bride into the US”

      How *were* you able to get your crack before you got married?Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Kolohe says:

        The only drugs I ever associated with Canada were the hippie drugs. Having spent more time there than I ever thought I would, I have no reason to change my opinion on that.

        They drink beer like my Michigan relatives, though. I didn’t see that coming.Report

  7. North says:

    Very well said Doc. Al Franken was at Twin Cities gay pride celebrations showing the flag in support of gay rights. I shook his hand, exchanged a few words. He was earnestly supportive and quite determined. Barring a sea change in his behavior and voting Franken has this gay vote and my husbands gay vote for any office he decides to try for. him a homophobe? Idiocy.Report

  8. LeeEsq says:

    My personal opinion is that immigration reform is going to fail in the House, so whether same sex couples gained the right to file I-130s for foreign partners is irrelevant since everything is going to fail.

    I’m somewhat sympathetic to Aravosis’ arguments since nobody should have to wait on a line for justice.Report

    • Art Deco in reply to LeeEsq says:

      What’s unjust? One ordinarily cannot acquire immigration preferences for friends. It is implicit in current law that the practice of sodomy does not enhance one’s status or claims. Disappointing to some, but public policy allocates valued things and some games are zero-sum.Report

      • Howdy, Art.

        I don’t think you comment over at Blinded Trials much, so I’ve had few interactions with you. But I’m familiar with your body of work. So this is your fair warning that I have absolutely zero compunction about shitcanning comments I think cross a certain line. You are edging just a wee bit close to that line with your comment that reduces same-sex relationships to sodomy, and I would politely suggest that you either back away from it in future comments or (perhaps more wisely) refrain from commenting further in this thread altogether.

        Your chum,

        • BlaiseP in reply to Russell Saunders says:

          I’ve already parked a far-worse comment and tracerouted him.Report

        • You wish to be spoken to deferentially and not dismissively. BlaiseP wishes to succor you in that not-terribly-reasonable desire. Regrettable, but that’s the world we live it. Happy trails.Report

          • I wish to be spoken to without frank derision. Being spoken to dismissively, as you put it, would not trouble me overmuch, particularly given the source in this case. But if you cannot refrain from expressing yourself in baldly derisive terms, then I would hardly lament your departure.Report

          • Dave in reply to Art Deco says:

            Regrettable, but that’s the world we live it. Happy trails.

            I will not regret your departure from these parts. At this point, I encourage it.

            Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.Report

            • Art Deco in reply to Dave says:

              Fair enough, Dave.

              Did you catch this:


              You might have caught one of those insipid lawsuits by village atheists concerning graduation prayers or perhaps Nancy Braiman’s campaign against the Greece Town Board in my old neck of the woods (of which I recall passing mention here).

              All of which is to say that collectivities have their pieties. Some people are at home with them and some people are not. Mr. Likko and Ms. Braiman and various and sundry lawfare artists are in favor of librum veto rule, even when they have nothing at stake.

              Now, y0u are all running a discussion forum here. Evidently, there are closed questions in your little open society – something one expects to a degree; there are foundational questions one does not wish to be bothered discussing and in any case it is an empirical regularity in social life. How you all process that is … inneresting.

              A person my age can readily recall a time when homosexuality was not taking up much rent-free space in the public mind – it was just another boutique cause among many – and could even be a subject of comedy (Garrett Morris, Flip Wilson, &c.). That being the case, it is a matter of some (anthropological?) interest that the etiquette of this forum is such that the homosexual population must be treated with the utmost delicacy – something you would not likely accord any other identifiable subculture and certainly not any to which I might be a member. All of this occurs in a cultural matrix where people pretend to respect the voice of the likes of Dan Savage, fearless scourge of evangelical high-school yearbook staff.

              People ask for various and sundry regulatory interventions and public benefits and someone else says how is that justified and why do your problems merit public attention. This is your idea of insupportable discussion? They are, in fact, perfectly banal and ordinary questions to ask about any public policy. You might ask yourself why you have a visceral reaction to someone who offers the opinion that your clientele are not special.Report

              • zic in reply to Art Deco says:

                A person my age can readily recall a time when homosexuality was not taking up much rent-free space in the public mind

                I’m of an age to remember. So aren’t my brothers, though the younger one is no longer living; he died of AIDS.

                When I think of that world — having no role models, no public way to talk about who and what they were — I weep. It breaks my heart. That void, also known as ‘the closet,’ might give you some comfort; if it does, that’s a reflection of you humanity.

                Personally, I find it lacking. Because that same void, and the lack of responsible action by Reagan’s administration, added to the grief of thousands of families like mine. Yes; I remember the jokes. The weren’t funny then, they aren’t funny now.

                I’d rather have my brother back, have him grow up in a world that accepts who and what he was. I love him, and I miss him every single day.Report

              • Patrick in reply to Art Deco says:

                You might ask yourself why you have a visceral reaction to someone who offers the opinion that your clientele are not special.

                Mostly because you use language intended to provoke a visceral reaction (which shows you’re kind of an ass)?

                Or… if it’s not intended – if you’re actually surprised that people find some of the things that you say really lacking in courteousness… well, that implies that you can’t be bothered to take the time to understand why, say, a woman might be offended if you told them that their husband was just their c**t buddy.

                In which case you’re not an ass, you’re an enormously self-centered person, instead. In either case, I don’t really have the inclination to spend my time trying to teach you basic courtesy.

                That doesn’t make “our clientele” “special”, it makes them pretty normal. And it makes your behavior not unlike a preteen who says “shit” in the company of his parents’ friends just to provoke a reaction.Report

              • His reply to Dave may be the most epic attempt at turd-polishing I’ve seen since the 2008 GOP ticket.Report

              • James Vonder Haar in reply to Art Deco says:

                A person who treated another social group in a similar way to how you referred to homosexuality would probably get taken to task for it arou d these parts, too. Consider what would happen if an atheist called into question first amendment protections by deriding all religious belief as “magical sky fairy worship.” That’s pretty damn close to boiling a gay marriage wholly down to sodomy.Report

      • RTod in reply to Art Deco says:

        Husbands, wives and partners are a little different from friends. And the sodomy comment isn’t just offensive, it’s moronic. Would you say that straight couples being allowed preference is be a use the law recognizes “boning?”

        This isn’t quite the “butt buddy” comment you made earlier, but you’re crossing some lines I won’t accept. You want to argue against SSM or its legal implications, be my guest. Doing so in the siggling sophmore fashion you’re choosing not acceptable at this site.Report

        • North in reply to RTod says:

          To be contrarian, I’d like to thank Art for being so forthright. He’s a straight out red meat exemplar of the argumentation that is common on the anti-ssm side. Accordingly he’s a monument to why the cause of SSM is advancing so historically quickly. Thanks Art.Report

          • zic in reply to North says:

            I like response, too.

            Think of dogs; they’re pack animals, they like attention. So the dog barks when someone walks in front of your house. “Shut up,” you yell. You’re giving the dog attention. Dog’s happy. Next time someone walks by the house, Dog barks, you yell, “Shut up, Dog,” and the cycle reinforces itself. And soon, every time someone walks by your house, the damned dog barks.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to RTod says:

          Whenever I read those comments, I think “am I doing it wrong?”

          Because Maribou will tell you that I’m pretty steeped in White Cis-Male Heterosexual Privilege and *I* don’t see the point of marriage as sex. That’s *THERE*, of course… but it’s, like, all the way over there.

          So when White Cis-Male Heterosexuals start talking about the point of marriage is sex, I’m all “dude, what the hell are you talking about?” when, normally, I’m pretty good at the White Cis-Male Heterosexual thing.Report

          • BlaiseP in reply to Jaybird says:

            For me, marriage is a frank admission I need someone else to keep an eye out for my blind spot, which is enormous. Someone trustworthy, who will tell me the truth. I have my own virtues, few enough I’ll stipulate to anyone, but I’m loyal to a fault and nobody in my shadow has ever lacked for support and kindness.

            “Everyone needs a wife.” I think that’s from Germaine Greer but I’m not sure.

            Good sex is really important. But it’s not the be-all and end-all of a marriage. It’s a reallyreally nice perq, the flower that blooms on the bush of a working relationship, a great comfort and a powerful statement of unity.Report

          • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

            “So when White Cis-Male Heterosexuals start talking about the point of marriage is sex, I’m all “dude, what the hell are you talking about?” when, normally, I’m pretty good at the White Cis-Male Heterosexual thing.”

            Did you have sex before marriage? For those of us who did (count me among them), marriage was about anything but sex.

            And I do the white cis-male heterosexual thing totes aces! I even wear a backwards ballcap sometimes!Report

      • Mike Schilling in reply to Art Deco says:

        Even worse with Doc, since he’d combine sodomy with hereditary Christ-killing.Report

        • George Turner in reply to Mike Schilling says:

          Well, the whole issue cross the line of mixing immigration and ethnic stereotypes with gay stereotypes, which is a line the government shouldn’t cross.

          For example, it won’t do anything to help Hispanic gays because there aren’t any, whereas the country would get overrun with angry French waiters (does anyone really want them working the Wendy’s drive-thru?) and possibly married gay French NASCAR drivers.

          As Ross Perot asked, “Is that the kind of America we want to leave to our children?” right before he started ranting about illegal Mexican bulls with mad cow disease running around biting children.Report

  9. Barbara says:

    Just a little terminology correction: “major league” refers to baseball, and said athlete is a professional basketball player.Report