Reader Mail

The Climax of the Plot

If there should be a marriage knot. Also: Hawke Hemingway. The coming Kerry draft. Veep peeps. And more.

2.29.04

Send to Kindle

HE'S NOT FOR ME
Re: Elihu Yale's Gay Marriage, Hollywood-Style :

Reading Elihu Yale's scenario of life and gay marriage in Hollywood, I have to agree that it's likely enough. But is it an argument AGAINST gay marriage? Surely Hollywood Gays have the same right to wreck their lives with injudicious marriages that Heterosexual Hollywood has enjoyed for more than a century? Or, to look at it another way, what have the Hollywood gays ever done for us that we should exempt them from their obligation to entertain us in divorce court?
-- C. S. P. Schofield

Re: Elihu Yale's "Gay Marriage, Hollywood Style," we see the author's point. "Thanks" for the screenplay. Now, what I can't understand is why the Spectator would print a bit of fiction when well-written non-fiction would have served the point better, in fewer words, with less turbulence to the stomach.

We all have imaginations. Homosexuality is viewed as it is, and rightly marginalized, by a majority of Americans precisely because the thought of Todd's "getting it" from Gary is an appalling one. And I will go out on a limb and say that most of your readers are smart enough not to need somebody's imagined details fleshed out for them.
-- Jeffrey S. Erickson
Davidson, NC

Very funny piece. As I was treated to the picture of Kelli Clarkson and Rosie "put me in a bus driver's uniform and I'm a dead ringer for Jackie Gleason" O'Donnell in a lip lock on the cover of this morning's Boston Herald, I couldn't help wonder if she made Kelli sign a pre-nuptial agreement before the ceremony.
-- William H. Stewart
Boston, Massachusetts

Bravo to the Spectator!! Not every red-blooded, macho American homo wants this, we've got it perfect just the way we are. Sorry, I'm not sharing my residuals with someone I met last night.
-- Rick James

The article about the homosexual couple had to be the toughest article to get through I've read on your site (which I have gone to for years). The description of the lifestyle is so beyond comprehension, it's shocking when it's recounted. My libertarian urges are fighting a pitched battle with my straight sensibilities, with the two sides saying "whatever" and "homosexuals should be quarantined on an island somewhere!"
-- Jonathan Shultz

The author of "Gay Marriage, Hollywood Style" is on target. Mr. Yale's account of a future world with Gay Marriage is more accurate than most know (or will admit). As a resident of both San Francisco and L.A. over the last several years, I've seen a few failed gay civil unions. The resulting legal fire-fights rival anything I've witnessed with my conventionally married friends when things go Splitsville.

Just combine an affair (suspected or actual -- it doesn't seem to matter), bruised egos, significant assets to contest (a nice home or two, a portfolio, an IRA, 401k plan maybe an art collection…), add a few aggressive litigators representing the respective contestants (er, ah, I mean parties), and the resulting shooting-war will be indistinguishable from any conventional marriage-on-the-rocks.

Granted, a failed civil union is likely to be a matter of contract law. Even so, this matters not once lawyers get involved. There's little civility left in the union, and ultimately the best lawyer wins, irrespective of the law (sounds like marriage to me...but I digress). Having gone through a divorce, I believe this to be a definition of true equality under the law. Forget a constitutional amendment banning Gay Marriage; this is hardly a matter for Government to decide. This issue is best left to the professionals: divorce lawyers.

BTW: Mr. Yale's article is one of the most entertaining pieces I've read in the Spectator. He also seems to have clear insight of how things really work anytime more than two people are involved in any union. Hopefully the subject parties will be honest enough to admit as much, be they gay, straight, or undecided.

In closing, I think the Spectator would do well in putting Mr. Yale under contract. His account of Hollywood marriages of all types could very well evolve into a riveting best seller or two, a syndicated column, and probably an HBO series.
-- A.W. Zlogar
Santa Barbara, California

Heh-heh. Enjoyed very much. It's really an indictment of homosexual promiscuity. Andrew Sullivan is not going to like it.
-- Bill Luse

Just like I said -- an entitlement grab but of a different financial sort. This scenario would put the happy out of gay. Would the ex-husband who recently returned from a trip to the cleaners then become a man hater?
-- diamon sforza
San Diego, California

Your article by Elihu Yale: Laughed till I hurt! This guy is really good. Look forward to seeing more of him in print.

You guys are the best.
-- Steve Gage
Dallas, Texas

The old adage "Be careful what you ask for" comes to mind. Being a strong opponent of same sex marriages, I found this article has almost changed my mind. Looking at this scenario there are additional benefits for us the tax paying public. Since Paul has to liquidate real estate holdings think of all that appreciated equity that the Feds now have the opportunity to claim capital gains on. And the improvement in payouts to Social Security and the IRS should increase as more divorce lawyers will be paying into the system with all the extra business. The outpouring of additional tax revenue could be staggering!

Why Mr. Greenspan might come back to Congress a year from now and say he is retracting all he said in 2004. Mr. Greenspan quoted in AP (c) 2005: "The unexpected boon from the economic churn in California and Massachusetts by practioners of alternate lifestyles will balance the current deficit by 2007. Our projections are of course tempered by expectations of divorce rates in these couples in the 60-70% range in any given fiscal year....."

Of course there could also be this headline : AP (c) 2010: "Gay Rights League today challenged in California Supreme Court the overturning of Prop 22 as was adjudicated in 2004. The GRL stated that overt movements by the California Tax Board made the taxation provisions untenable and the best structural relief was reinstitution of Prop 22 and subsequent nullification of alternative partner arrangements and their consequential tax effects ...."

Equality can be a sobering experience.
-- John McGinnis
Arlington, Texas

As I read the angry criticism of President Bush's endorsement of a Defense of Marriage Amendment, I cannot help but wonder whether those in favor of redefining marriage realize that the term "gay marriage" is indeed the ultimate oxymoron!

And I would ask those who are so ready to endorse such a radical measure as redefining marriage to include members of the same sex: would you also endorse the much less radical and more logical redefinition of the term "person" to include members of the human race who are not yet born? I doubt they would …
-- Al Lindeman
Scottsdale, Arizona

That whole Paul, Todd and Gary example was creepy.
-- Steve Shaver

FEEL THE KERRY DRAFT
Re: George Neumayr's The Kerry ERA:

I do not believe I have ever read such jabberwocky logic as that contained in the article The Kerry ERA. The article makes no sense and is clearly designed to confuse the issues of equal rights and gay rights--a very old and tired tactic -- in order to bash John Kerry.

I found it hilarious that the writer harks back to the anti-ERA scare tactic that the amendment would support same sex marriage. Proponents of the ERA always said that the ERA was not about same sex marriage and sure enough here we are 22 years later with no ERA and yet gay marriage is looming before us. The writer says, "So if Kerry, as he says today, is opposed to constitutional amendments which touch on marriage, why did he support ERA as it threatened to upend marital laws?" Duh, because unlike the writer and the stop ERA crowd, Kerry knew that the ERA was not going to "upend marital law."

That scare tactic is as hollow as the one about women being drafted if the ERA was passed. Congress always had the power to draft women without the ERA. In fact this is easily proven because there is legislation in Congress today (HRes 163) which reactivates the selective service system and includes the drafting of young women in its very first sentence!

John Kerry was, and still is, supportive of the ERA because it gives a constitutional guarantee of equality to the majority of America's population -- women. Women now serve in every aspect of American life including dying in the front lines in a war being fought on foreign soil. They are there protecting rights codified in a Constitution which technically does not include them. If there ever was a time to honor American women by giving them full and guaranteed constitutional equality, I don't know when it would have been. How anyone, in this day and age, can construct such a convoluted argument in order to use John Kerry's support of the Equal Rights Amendment as a weapon against him, is sadly out of touch and out of time. And I might add desperate.
-- I. Moore

NOVELTIES
Re: James Bowman's Chicken Hawke Celebrities:

I long for the day that Bush, Powell, or Rumsfeld ends a press conference saying, "By the way, so-and-so is a terrible actor. I saw his last film, and it reeked."
-- Noemie Emery

James Bowman should have done a little research before belittling Ethan Hawke as "a man who has never in his life done anything but impersonate other people in front of a camera." Hawke is the author of two novels. A quick trip to Amazon.com reveals they are published by Vintage, which I understand to be an imprint of some distinction, and have been praised by the London and New York Times. They might be rubbish, and Hawke may indeed be a "nincompoop," but I am reliably informed that novel writing requires sustained application and self-discipline, in addition to power of observation, if not the high intelligence that Bowman normally displays.
-- Kevin Michael Grace
Victoria, BC, Canada

Mr. Bowman refers to the tribe of celebrity that is united in hate and anger over a Republican administration. I say that these celebrities (actors) suffer from "John Wilkes Booth Syndrome."
-- Peter Ostrowski

NO HORSING AROUND
Re: Lawrence Henry's The Real Veepstakes:

I enjoyed his tongue -in-check exposé. However, I recall the '88 election with the Quayle-Bentsen Veep debate -- with the old "I knew JFK and you're no JFK" quip. The CW was that the wrong person was heading the Democrat ticket. Later it was postulated that if Benson was younger, he might have run as the candidate in '92.

So then, if Hillary runs as Veep, is she in better shape to make a run in '08 -- assuming her ticket loses?
-- Rick Osial
Montclair, Virginia

Lawrence Henry replies:
I will say to Mr. Osial what I said to my editor, who asked me a similar question. If Kerry picks Hillary, he might as well finish out the race with a sign hanging around his neck, declaring, "I am a gelding."

BUG EYED
Re: Brian Doherty's Two Bag Ugly:

Is it possible that you missed the whole point? In the Midwest in urban areas, it is a constant battle to keep cockroaches out of my house. They come in in paper products such as cardboard boxes, and especially paper bags which come from a grocery store where fresh produce is kept. A little inconvenience in shapeless packaging is a small price to pay to avoid carrying roach-domiciles into my house.
-- Gordon Clason

MUG SHOT
Re: The Washington Prowler's Not Sounding Too Great: Kerry Turns Zombie:

Candid Photos of the new JFK look to me strikingly like or a combination of Officer Francis Muldoon (Car 54, Where Are You?) and Stanley Laurel. Problem is, the French-looking one is serious or thinks he is and he is not amusing.
-- GMS
Media, Pennsylvania

LETTER PERFECT
Re: Rudy Mercado's letter ("Seeing Is Believing") in Reader Mail's In and Out of Tune:

Thanks for publishing Mr. Mercado's letter to Mr. Tyrrell about The Passion of the Christ. It is one of the best letters of its kind I have ever read. It is far more powerful, in its plainspoken attitude then many more elegant letters I have read.

I think Mr. Mercado sums the whole situation up quite well when he writes "This movie is not about Hollywood or Mel Gibson, it is about Jesus and that is the only reason that you should be wanting to see it."

This picture is obviously something very important, and like most important things it will inspire controversy, but I think Mr. Mercado sorts it out quite well, the wheat from the chaff.
-- Jessica O'Connor
Bayonne, New Jersey

Like this Article

Print this Article

Print Article