the conservative radio talker in milwaukee has said some stuff in the past that's infuriated me. so much so that last year i extended a somewhat sordid invitation to sykes that he never expressed any interest in taking me up on.
but last week, sykes said some pretty cool stuff about the the skylight theatre's decision to
now i learn – you'll forgive me if i missed this, i'm not a regular sykes listener or reader of his columns – that in 2006 sykes actually came out. against wisconsin's recent amendment to ban gay marriage, that is.
his comments landed him in hot water with much of the conservative community, some of whom labeled him a rino (republican in name only.) perhaps it's because sykes' comments on marriage equality could easily have come out of fire-breathing liberal like me:
Exactly how does allowing gays to enter into legal, monogamous relationships undermine the institution of marriage? Isn't in society's interest to foster and recognize such stable relationships? And why would that be something that conservatives would oppose?
Let's be honest: when gays point to divorce as a greater threat to marriage, they have a point. Yet, so far, none of the defenders of marriage have proposed banning divorce, or barring the infertile from the rites of marital bliss.
If the concern is combatting threats to marriage, why not focus on the "domestic partner" benefits that extend insurance etc. to members of the opposite sex who merely shack up with favored employees? The only real justification for such shack-up benefits is that, short of recognizing gay marriage, they are the only way to extend such benefits to committed gay couples. But by conferring marital benefits to boy friends and girl friends alike, they erase the distinction between marriage and casual sex - a far greater challenge to the primacy of marriage than gay marriage itself.
Gays who wish to marry don't want to tear down marriage. They want in on it.