About Me

Kyle Smith (Twitter: @rkylesmith) is critic-at-large for National Review, theater critic for The New Criterion and the author of the novels Love Monkey and A Christmas Caroline. Type a title in the box above to locate a review.

Buy Love Monkey for $4! "Hilarious"--Maslin, NY Times. "Exceedingly readable and wickedly funny romantic comedy"--S.F. Chronicle. "Loud and brash, a helluva lot of fun"--Entertainment Weekly. "Engaging romp, laugh-out-loud funny"-CNN. "Shrewd, self-deprecating, oh-so-witty. Smith's ruthless humor knows no bounds"--NPR

Buy A Christmas Caroline for $10! "for those who prefer their sentimentality seasoned with a dash of cynical wit. A quick, enjoyable read...straight out of Devil Wears Prada"--The Wall Street Journal

Rotten Tomatoes
Search Movie/Celeb

Advanced Search
  • Recent Comments

  • Categories

  • « | Home | »

    Congratulations Gay Patriots

    By kyle | April 7, 2009

    Vermont has done the nation proud, becoming the first state to make the morally correct decision to legalize gay marriage the proper way, the way a democratic republic is supposed to institute changes in laws — through elected legislatures whose job is to govern the way they believe the people want them to. The governor of Vermont vetoed a gay marriage bill (using as cover the obviously specious argument that an economic downturn is no time for such distractions, as though people don’t get married in economic downturns — and as though attracting gay couples to your state to marry has no economic value). The legislature overturned the veto by a 2/3 supermajority. Who knew you could fit nearly 200 representatives and senators in Vermont, a state so teeny that we Massachusettsans kicked sand in its face on our way to Maine?

    There is no good reason why gays should be deprived of the right to marry, gay relationships are not immoral, the Bible’s views on the matter are irrelevant given that book’s pro-genocide stance and other repugnant teachings, gay marriage does not pose some sort of threat to straight people (or the traditional family) and an increasing portion of the country realizes the time to legalize gay marriage has arrived. But it is vitally important that it not be imposed on citizens against their will by small groups of judges willfully misreading constitutions.

    If I were gay I’d reward Vermont with my tourism dollars and have a big gay honeymoon there. And to gays across the nation looking forward to getting hitched in a state where the legality of same-sex marriage can’t be questioned, I say, Welcome to being caged up with the same person for the rest of your life, suckers!*
    More from Gay Patriot.

    *To the Missus–Just kidding! Mwah.

    Topics: News, Philosophy, Politics | 17 Comments »

    17 Responses to “Congratulations Gay Patriots”

    1. Christian Toto Says:
      April 8th, 2009 at 1:09 am

      I agree on all fronts. I thought it would be wiser for the gay community to push for civil unions – get all the medical rights they deserve while preserving the existing sanctity of marriage for those who oppose such unions. It would be a gradual process, but I think it would benefit all.

      Then, slowly, gay marriage would likely become a more acceptable notion once everyone realizes civil unions haven’t led to the death of marriage, etc.

      But the way all this change is happening is causing strife, not harmony.

    2. Hunter Tremayne Says:
      April 8th, 2009 at 5:16 am

      This news will be manna from heaven for Lou Leminick, who is headed up to Vermont with his Eastman Kodak Number 2 Brownie even as we speak, hoping to catch Brad Pitt and George Clooney having a snog by the pool.

    3. KS Says:
      April 8th, 2009 at 11:08 am

      Is there any good reason why marriage should be between two adults? Plural relationships are not immoral, are they?

    4. kishke Says:
      April 8th, 2009 at 11:52 am

      Is there any good reason to forbid incestuous relationships? Why shouldn’t brothers and sisters of consenting age be allowed to marry? Surely the Bible isn’t a factor.

    5. Brandon Says:
      April 8th, 2009 at 12:19 pm

      Kishke & KS,

      Typically I agree with both of you but this sort of moral equivocation is not a very persuasive arguement against gay marriage. It’s like saying if I have a right to bear arms why can’t I build an ICBM in my back yard?

      We are a nation of laws and while we were founded by Christians who instilled many of those pricniples into our framework we ultimately are a nation of secular laws. Objecting to gay marriage strictly on moral grounds is no reason to forbid it by law. Our laws were intentionally made secular so that we could be free from the shackles of the Church of England. This doesn’t mean that we turn our back on morality all together but morality is ultimately an individual decision and an individual right and therefore should not be collectively legislated.

      I know it is difficult to seperate emotion from logic on something when you believe strongly in it but as Conservatives we have to, otherwise we become just like the Left. As there is no law on the books that forbids a consenting relationship between two adults of the same sex there is no legal reason for us to try and prevent them from legal binding themselves in the eyes of the government (that’s all this is). This should be left (by both sides) as a decision to be made by the legislative process of the states and Vermont has made their decision in a constitutional way and it should be respected.

    6. KS Says:
      April 8th, 2009 at 12:37 pm

      Thank you for the lecture, Brandon, but I still think that I raised legitimate questions. As to kishke’s comment, I can understand why siblings aren’t allowed to marry, not that many would do it.

      I think that there is considerable emotion on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. Anyway, I’ve added my two cents.

    7. Brandon Says:
      April 8th, 2009 at 1:10 pm


      Plural relationships as you put it are illegal and yes that is a law based on morality but ultimately all that matters is it’s illegal. Conversely a gay relationship is not illegal. Placing limitations on a legal relationship is a slippery slope.

      You are correct though there is a lot of emotion and in some cases outright militant behavior (that’s mostly those nutjobs who are blacklisting and threatening people who voted for Prop 8).

    8. disgusted Says:
      April 8th, 2009 at 2:50 pm

      The Bible’s views are “irrelevant”? Nice slap in the face…during Holy Week, yet.

      Kyle, your blog is occasionally interesting, but this will be my last visit. The mainstream media already supply more than enough gratuitous insults to believers; I don’t need to seek them out from your site.

    9. kishke Says:
      April 8th, 2009 at 3:03 pm

      The question, Brandon, is on what basis is the one illegal and the other not? And there’s no emotion in my comment (nor in the thought behind the comment); it’s a logical question questioning the logic behind the differentiation.

    10. Brandon Says:
      April 8th, 2009 at 4:20 pm


      No doubt it’s illegal because it is a law based on morality. I do not dispute that at all, one could argue that all laws at their core are based on morality.

      My point is that since gay relationships are not illegal there is no recourse for preventing them from being married. If homosexuality were suddenly outlawed then you would have legal grounds to dispute it on, but I don’t think anyone wants to make it illegal.

    11. KS Says:
      April 8th, 2009 at 6:10 pm

      “Plural relationships as you put it are illegal . . . .”

      What state do you live in, Brandon? Is it illegal for a man to have a mistress, for example, or for someone to date two people at the same time?

    12. shangui Says:
      April 9th, 2009 at 8:55 am

      “while we were founded by Christians”

      Well, many of the “founding fathers” were Deists, not Christians (as in they did not believe in the divinity of Christ).

    13. Hunter Tremayne Says:
      April 9th, 2009 at 10:40 am

      It’s hardly surprising that a country founded by people who were kicked out of England because they didn’t like singing and dancing (yes, that’s right, American kids, they lied to you in school) should have a problem with gay unions.

    14. Brandon Says:
      April 9th, 2009 at 12:04 pm

      Yeah Hunter I’m sure that is exactly why America was founded, because a few people didn’t like singing and dancing. Something tells me it went a bit deeper than that.

    15. KS Says:
      April 9th, 2009 at 12:08 pm

      Is same-sex marriage legal in Great Britain?

    16. Hunter Tremayne Says:
      April 9th, 2009 at 12:36 pm

      @ Brandon. They didn’t like drinking much either, which must be why they later invented Budweiser

    17. Jason Says:
      April 9th, 2009 at 7:04 pm

      A couple of things:

      Gay marriage is not illegal, nor are “plural relationships”. They’re just not legally observed, acknowledged, or codified. There’s a difference. I have no problem personally with gay marriages being legally recognized, but I do have problems with abuse of the language.

      But there is nothing illegal about two adults of the same sex declaring their intentions to spend the rest of their lives together and calling themselves “married.” Whether or not the state they live in chooses to recognize that arrangement is an entirely different story. But failure to recognize it doesn’t make it illegal. It’s not a very good argument to say that because it’s not illegal, it should be legally recognized.

      Also, Budweiser was created by a German guy who came to the U.S. So, I’m not sure you can blame that on the same people who didn’t like singing and dancing. However, I happen to like Budweiser (among a great variety of additional beers), and most of the time, I hate singing and dancing. Not for religious reasons, though.