Avarosis may be overstating his case, but Chris is a total Obama apologist. Chris seems to think that but for John there'd be no problem with the DOMA brief. I am following John's lead. The White House seems to be paying attention to us since he started harping. We haven't seen nearly enough progress yet, but the little progress we seem to be getting from the WH is from John's blog (and Pam's), not Chris'. (BTW-Chris hasn't had balls enough to take on Pam and she is right in there post for post with John.)

@Yet another John: That is because all Pam does is repeat the insane crap that John is asserting.

John A stopped sounding even vaguely sane four years ago. Just because a guy is gay is not reason enough for me to ignore the fact that he's occupying the Bill O'Reilly Seat on the LeftyBus.

Take an ativan and read some Alinsky John.

Let me correct myself … Not the BillO seat; The Sarah Palin-Politics-of-Grievance Seat

@Mike: So true, Pam has become as cluless as Obama on gbltq issues, and really needs to take a break and get back to blogging when she has something to say that is her own.

@Dabq: The final straw for me, where Pam is concerned, is when she wrote a piece last week about how fitting it was that the gay blog "riot/revolution" was happing so close to Stonewall. That the blogs are the new Stonewall.

Give me a fucking break. A group of bloggers sitting on their asses criticizing the gay activists that actually are out on the streets or bitching about Obama is not a revolution.

Sorry, Lady.

@Mike "A group of bloggers sitting on their asses criticizing the gay activists that actually are out on the streets or bitching about Obama is not a revolution." Sorry, I don't see them criticizing the activist that are actually on the street, it is the cocktail sipping, back room hush-hush deal cutting "leaders" they are criticizing. On the contrary, they seem to be motivating the "on the street" activists into demonstrating at the DNC fundraiser. Honestly, does the DOMA brief filed by the DOJ make you feel all warm and fuzzy for Obama? NOT ME!

@Leto: Leto. They totally cut the legs out from under the March. People actually organizing and getting people involved, not sitting around in a dark room in their mother's basement.

Chris speaks the truth. I rather be led in the right direction vs led into a ditch.

John is acting like a jealous ex watching his ex boyfriend with someone new. We need a wise and smart vision, but a misguided and aimless one

The definitive Aravosis smackdown comes courtesy of Bilerico.

http://www.bilerico.com/2009/0.....rupted.php

Chris' blog is great too.

Loving Chris and Alex Blaze.

If it goes the to the parking lot, I've got odds on john kicking this guy's ass. NOthing to do with him being right or anything….though this guy law dork is quite an apologist…and I haven't seen him really refute that the doj doma brief compared gay relationships to incest and pedophilia…he said he did…I couldn't find that reasoning.

@TANK:

"I haven't seen him really refute that the doj doma brief compared gay relationships to incest and pedophilia…he said he did…I couldn't find that reasoning."

Okay, I'll break it down. Pedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescent children. The case cited in Smelt was that of a woman who was married at 16 (post-pubescent), who later sued to have the marriage annulled. She was not a child. Being married at 16 remains legal (with parental consent) in many states. As far as I can tell, there were no claims in the case that she was married to a pervert or that she was forced into it. Going from that to Obama is comparing us to pedophiles is a huge stretch that actually harms the argument.

The "incest" couples were first cousins (not brother and sister or parent/child) who were LEGALLY married in their native state of New Mexico. The other are uncle and niece who were LEGALLY married in Italy. The issue, then, is a particular state's right to not recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions that are not legal in that state.

Robert Shrum tends to agree with Avarosis, not Chris. See his article from yesterday: http://www.theweek.com/article.....g_problems

Okay, I'll break it down. Pedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescent children.

Not according to law enforcement, and my psychologists (paraphilia). Pedophilia comes with a range of different distinctions including post pubescent legal minors. I just don't see any reasoning here disputing the comparison.

MANY psychologists, rather. LOL!

The "incest" couples were first cousins (not brother and sister or parent/child) who were LEGALLY married in their native state of New Mexico.

And? They're an incestuous couple, and it was being used to argue for the values of a certain state making their incestuous marriage illegal. Seems like a comparison to me.

The other are uncle and niece who were LEGALLY married in Italy.

Yeah, even more disgusting.

The issue, then, is a particular state's right to not recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions that are not legal in that state.

That's only part of it. You should actually read the brief before commenting on it. In it, it argues by comparison of homosexual marriage to incest and pedophilia, with states having the right to not recognize those marriages based upon their values.

@Movement Guy:

I mean this is just baseless apologism. It's creepy, actually…skin crawlingly creepy. I hope you're not gay and that you don't work for an advocacy group of any kind. It's embarrassing.