Gay community apologizes to Amy Koch for ruining her marriage

• @yahoo-H6CW2GMAO5OPI4YX2SR6A5A65I:disqus , I'd like to politely disagree with your comment. Unfortunately, I think you misunderstood @twitter-263841552:disqus  comment and intention. In all actuality, David's comment is supporting the letter (therefore making him the opposite of homophobic). When he says "written for a 3rd grader," he's saying that the conservatives who are anti-gay rights have the intelligence of 9 year old children. Also,  the term "hypocrites" refers to Amy Kock and her lover. "Those that support these hypocrites" are the members of the GOP and others who have similar anti-gay views.  As a gay woman, I appreciate your defense of homosexual relationships; however, it does no good to attack people with similar views. 

• OK, purely within context then, the bible is a book!  Not law, a book! bunch of stupid words on dead trees!  Religious people are going to be the end of the world if they keep this "I'm worth more than you" BS!

• Fucking heterophobes.  Queers ruin everything for everybody

• Thank you, Mr. Medeiros, for making this point.

• Too funny.  I guess I'm late to the game here.  I was just reading the other day in an article in Psychology Today about a gay study that said 75% of gay male couples are in open relationships.  I don't think it said anything about lesbian couples.  Maybe the solution is that marraige should be defined by monogomy and not the sex of those who enter the commitment???

• The sarcasm is wonderful in this missive. I applaud Mr. Medeiros for his timeliness, his sense of humor and the manner of civility with which he has attacked Amy Koch.

• Now that I know what Amy is, I'm ready to negotiate the price.

• Wow. After reading other people's posts about this article and the letter included within, it is easy to see that this topic is controversial. Why? That is what has always eluded me. The message I get from the bible is that Jesus wants us to love! I thought the letter was funny.

• Wow. I never knew so many Bible Scholars read CityPages Online! What if it's ALL BULLSHIT!?

• Perhaps you should revisit the letter. This is not about her mistake. It's about her hypocrisy. Degrading? She did that herself. 

• James, This is not a complicated issue. The woman attempted to use a source with which she is not well acquainted and has obviously given no scholarly thought to support her prejudices. This was her choice but by doing so she subjects herself to the same scrutiny and debate from the same sources utilized to advance her position. It is unfortunate that anyone, far less one of influence, would advance his or her opinion as being rationally based or factual. One can however easily mistake personal belief as fact if they misrepresent the belief as fact long enough. It's a "slippery slope" she chose. 

• Correct. She should not have used the Bible to support her own irrational myopic bigotry. It would be preferable if homophobes would simply state the truth, i.e., they don't "want" others to enjoy the same rights we are all guaranteed because of personal feelings and political gain rather than attempting a flawed rationalization. It continues to wreak havoc as they sleep with same-sex or opposite sex partners outside their committed relationships. How dumb do they think the electorate really is? As dumb as we actually are? Moreover, It's insulting to those of us advancing  reason to support positions. 

• ...with fake power comes fake responsibility...

• Oh, how I love to see the misdeeds of self righteous people thrown back at them!

• Amy Koch, blaming same sex marraiges on YOUR infidelity is the most ridiculous thing I've EVER heard. You're just a whore. Own it!

• sounds like faghater2011 is just another self loathing fag himself.  Thankfully, he can't reproduce his own stupid ass.

• I didn't say it was a coherent rational argument or that it was a work of comedic genius.  There's also a big difference in you telling your five-year-old to go to bed, and a politician telling an entire class of adult people that they don't deserve equal rights because that politician happens to hold an erroneous unsubstantiated belief about what other people should and shouldn't be doing in bed.

• FYI, the author of this letter is a member of a local church.  Of course we know God loves us.  We're not the ones who say God doesn't.

• Here's the problem, people.  There are two kinds of marriage: the legal kind sanctioned by the government (which is afforded to heterosexuals, but not homosexuals), and the religious kind sanctioned by the church.  What the GLBT community is asking for is the first kind, not the second.  Those in favor of a constitutional amendment confuse the second with the first. Folks, this Constitutional amendment is sooo not necessary.  Minnesota law already bans gay marriage.  Minnesota law also bans recognition of gay marriage recognized by and performed in other states.  The amendment does not change this.

• Hi, Guest25, I like your comment "no true believer gets their kicks out of spewing hate..."  I think it's worth looking at the follow up letter that Medeiros wrote.  Have you seen it?  Here is the link:  http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/12/john_medeiros_amy_koch_gay_apology.php 

• boo to this letter!  How arrogant, and how upsetting that the people who wrote this letter took a cheap, low blow at Christianity by saying "side we are not church-going people..."  I absolutely hate that Christian faith and the Bible are getting drug through the mud b/c of the marriage issue.  It's really sad and does not show love by the LGBT community. God loves them too, and i'd wish they'd see that. 

• Who's the real bigot here?  No true believer is calling you an idiot.  No true believer says you are dense and don't have a brain.  No true believer gets their kicks out of spewing hate like you did above.  Maybe you better examine your heart and see who the real close-minded individual is here, Guitom. 

• If you have no moral absolutes then it really doesn't matter what you do, does it?  If you cloud the area of right and wrong, then who gets to be the final authority in the matter?  That's what I don't understand about non-Christians.  They fuss because we believe in an absolute standard, but then they set themselves up as their own absolute standard.  The Bible says all things are not natural.  You say they are.  We aren't going to get anywhere in this discussion.  You can take your chances with your worldview.  I wish you the best, but according to my worldview (which I have every much of a right to believe as you do yours) it's not going to end well for you.  But see Christianity isn't as exclusive as unbelievers make it out to be.  In our worldview, God came down in the flesh and died for a bunch of sinners that hated him, so that through the atonement of Jesus Christ those sinners could have forgiveness of sins and eternal life.  That sounds pretty inclusive to me.  And that forgiveness of sins and eternal life is offered to you through the name of Jesus Christ, but you have a problem with the morality of Christianity.  It always goes back to the moral issue.

• "Relying on what the bible says is where the true ludicrousness is. I have never met more judgmental, closed-minded people than religious zealots."  ' What a bigoted, close-minded statement from someone that claims to be open minded.  You must be the final authority on these matters to make a statement like that.  I would say you are the most judgmental, closed-minded individual I have ever heard from.  People like you are pretty easy to deal with.  You think you see everything perfectly and clearly or else you wouldn't make statements like that.  If you can make statements like that, then how dare you claim religious zealots of being judgmental and close-minded?  Your subjective rants show your true colors, don't you agree? 

• So amusing how the bible thumpers and other right-wing miscreants are too dense to comprehend sarcasm and the obvious (to those of us with a brain) commentary on Koch's BLATANT hypocrisy. Idiots.

• Another bigot succumbs to the human weakness we all share and bites the dust in spite of her hate legislation. What comes around goes around.

• For someone who claims to hate gays you sure do think a lot about the insertion of dicks...

• Replying to the comment quoted below- " Really?  Everything is natural?  There are no moral absolutes?  Give me a break.  You and I know that you don't believe that simply because of the things you withhold yourself from doing.  Even you know there are moral absolutes, Brandon." 'Natural' and 'unnatural' are not cognate with 'good' and 'bad'. Or 'moral' and 'immoral'. If something occurs in nature it is natural. Simple as. Whether it is 'good' or 'moral' is another matter, and Brandon addressed that in his second paragraph. Also, the concepts of 'good', 'bad', 'moral' and 'immoral' are human constructs- natural in that they are a product of a natural thing- i.e. humans, but they are subjective. Moreover, there's a bit of a false dichotomy there- things are not EITHER good OR bad, moral OR immoral, some things are seen as being 'not bad' or 'not immoral'. Concepts of morality change over time. Many things that most people now view as being 'immoral' have, in the past, been seen as either 'not immoral' or actively 'moral'. Example- sexual contact with pubescents. It was seen as being unremarkable in Ancient Rome, and was considered to be actively good in Ancient Greece, especially Athens. The  erastes/eromenos relationship was seen as necessary for the social development of the boy. You mention moral absolutes- what do you mean by that? Is not killing someone a moral absolute? Sure, I don't go around killing people because they annoy me (tempted as I am on some occasions- I hated Christmas shopping!), but if someone were to threaten the lives of my family, and the only way to stop them were to kill them, I'd do my best to do so. Stealing? I'm not going to mug someone for an iPhone, but if I were in a situation where my child was starving and I had no other way of getting them food I'd certainly consider a spot of shoplifting or similar. Child abuse? I could, just about, imagine a situation where some maniac might force someone into doing such a thing to prevent an even worse thing happening to the child in question. Thankfully, that's such an extreme hypothetical it's very unlikely to ever happen. I hope. What do you consider to be a moral absolute? Could you hypothesis a situation in which it would be the lesser of two evils?

• Kids have the right to a mom and dad that love each other? Is that a legal right? If so, who do I sue for compensation, given that my father died when I was little? Children need parents who love them, care about them, can give them time and attention. They also need good role models, both male and female. But being a genetic donor is not a requirement for being a good parent or role model. And, as the evidence is showing, neither is heterosexuality (google for the Paediatrics journal, serch for the study on lesbian parents families). This does NOT mean that same-sex parents are better than opposite sex ones, it just means that sexuality is not a factor in parenting.

• Replying to this comment because there's no 'reply' button for the post I'm actually responding to- " What you describe all over the world does not fit how we define marriage. Civil union recognized by the state? Sure. Marriage is defined as a man and a woman proclaiming their love to each other to God. Not to a judge or even a preacher, but to God. And once they're joined in this sacrament before God, they can never be separated. Never. If we were to allow same-sex unions for tax/insurance/justice reasons, fine. Just don't call it a marriage." By "we", do you mean your church? That's fine. No problem. Marriage has been defined in a lot of ways over the course of human history, as has what makes two people married. Your definition is a lovely one, as it involves a proclamation of mutual love- but for a lot of history love has NOT been a requirement for marriage. Certainly not for nobility, where marriage was more about the forming of alliances and consolidation of status. Common people probably had more room to marry based on emotion- but there would still be practical considerations. Marriage is older than Christianity, older than Judaism. It's a social construct, and the most common feature has been the public declaration of commitment, and in the UK at least (can't speak for other countries) the public nature of the declaration is vital- a marriage must be conducted in public. If it's held privately (i.e. the doors are locked so that no-one who wasn't an invited guest could enter) the marriage is not legal. (Sidebar- I imagine that for security reasons there was some sort of door control when Kate and Wills got married, but televising the event probably covered the 'in public' requirement...) Your church apparently has it's own definition of marriage which applies to it's adherants- but that's all it applies to. It is not the legal definition of marriage anywhere. Some places agree with the 'One man, one woman' bit. Others don't. Most won't recognise the marriage you describe unless the declaration is also done in front of a judge/registrar/priest and witnesses, and need the couple to say a particular phrase which constitutes the legally required declaration of commitment. TL:DR version- that's your definition. It's not the universal one.

• You're right, Chuck, Leviticus also does not condemn abortion, either.  Doesn't really change the context of my answer, though.

• Relying on what the bible says is where the true ludicrousness is. I have never met more judgmental, closed-minded people than religious zealots. Isn't the point of life to find love, peace and happiness? In the end, do you really think that your maker (whomever that is) will care who you married, as long as you were true to your faith (whatever it is), true to your love (whomever that is) and true to yourself?  Why does it matter if the person is male or female? The bible also says that you should beat your children into compliance...is that a new law as well?

• What you describe all over the world does not fit how we define marriage. Civil union recognized by the state? Sure. Marriage is defined as a man and a woman proclaiming their love to each other to God. Not to a judge or even a preacher, but to God. And once they're joined in this sacrament before God, they can never be separated. Never. If we were to allow same-sex unions for tax/insurance/justice reasons, fine. Just don't call it a marriage.

• All the more reason for the state to take a vested interest in families. Kids have rights, too, including the right to a mom and a dad that love each other. Once children are seen as commodities, that can be bought (e.g. IVF) or even ordered, then we have truly begun playing God.

• Read the follow up. http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/12/john_medeiros_amy_koch_gay_apology.php

• Um, you clearly missed the point.  Clinton didn't try to legislate morality.  That's the difference. 

• by no stretch of the imagination or under any type of definition does this letter qualify as news!  it is an op-ed,  someones opinion being tauted as some kind of unearthly slam against someone who made some very poor decisions. as so many of you liberal whackos said regarding Pres. Clintons many "indiscretions"  this is a private matter that should be dealt with by the parties involved and has nothing to do with their ability to maintain their positions.

• santimonioous liberal garbage!  Looking forward to John's apology letter to Hilary Clinton for the gay communities role in that Presidents illicit and ongoing affairs with a White House intern!  Oh wait,  as a liberal John is well above us all and can certainly pick and choose what is moral,  what is not,  what is to be lauded and what is to be condemned. This letter is wonderful proof of the absolute hypocricy and LUNACY of the left,  gay or straight!

• Guest25, if the character flaw in question was simply her cheating on her husband, that would be one thing. But the flaw being highlighted is her hypocrasy. She has been working hard to prevent couples from receiving the legal and social benefits that she enjoys by claiming that same-sex marriage somehow harms opposite-sex marriages- while at the same time doing something that DOES harm marriage- namely, being unfaithful. The letter satirised the standard rhetoric of the anti-marriage equality side to highlight her loss of credibility on this issue. If the letter constitutes an attack, and that's a very big IF, then, as the writer says in the follow-up article, "Consider where [it] originated." If she hadn't made 'the sanctity of marriage' and how same-sex marriage supposedly damages it such a key part of her political image, this letter would indeed have been uncalled for. But she brought the topic to the table- why shouldn't she get a slice?   Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, turnabout is fair play, and don't dish it out if you can't take it....

• Really?  Everything is natural?  There are no moral absolutes?  Give me a break.  You and I know that you don't believe that simply because of the things you withhold yourself from doing.  Even you know there are moral absolutes, Brandon.

• My point is that the letter was stupid.  He and others on this board are attacking the character flaw of this heterosexual lady in order to defend their views on homosexuality.  Why is everyone missing this point?  I've already said if you want to defend homosexuality, then go ahead, but an ad hominem letter is a poor way to go about it!

• What does it mean to be natural?  Every action by any living thing on the Earth is derived from the Earth, making everything natural.  Therefore, homosexuality cannot be declared unnatural. And as far as righteousness goes, in mathematics/logic, a statement is vacuously true so long as there is no proof for otherwise.  So, homosexuality is just as "right" as heterosexuality.

• Doesn't make 'em unnatural or wrong, either.... Actually, the flaws of one hetero relationship doesn't affect any other hetero relationship either. What was your point?

• The flaws of heterosexual relationships doesn't make homosexual relationships any more natural or right.  Sorry.

• For Tjswift- "Ehh, not so much. Have a look at the CDC's disease surveillance  reports..."being "is costing hundreds of lives and billions of dollars every year. Neeext!" Being? Being what? Just- being? Existing? Yeah, that will cost money... Being gay? How does it cost lives and money? Public money, that is- just 'being', whether straight or gay, will cost the individual money of course.... Disease surveillance- Are you talking about STDs? Yes, they cost public money, I can see that- but what has that to do with being gay? You do know that being gay doesn't cause one to develop STDs, don't you? That should have been covered by basic sex ed. classes. Well, in case you missed that class, most STDs are spread by not using barrier methods properly or at all- condoms or femidoms. Exceptions are- genital warts, genital herpes, crabs, where the barrier contraceptives don't cover the affected areas. If I've missed any, could someone let me know?

• Same-sex marriage is impossible? Hardly. It exists all over the world and is even endorsed by parts of some religions- although not by as many as endorse opposite sex marriage. Oh well. The religious bit is nice for some people, but it's not the important part. Welcome to the 21st century. Bit late, but better that than never.

• Abstract- http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/126/1/28.abstract?sid=78f8f2e8-b2ff-4d8f-853f-e90afcbb2397 It's not that there's any difference between the basic parenting ability of straight versus gay women, it's more that same-sex couples who want to be parents have to work harder at becoming parents than most of their opposite-sex couple counterparts. Less with the unplanned pregnancies, more with the jumping through hoops for adoption or arranging donor insemination. Also- James- the idea that fathers should be actively involved with the raising of children is a very modern concept....

• Marriage is NOT an inherantly religious institution. It existed before not only Christianity but also Judaism. More to the point, it wasn't something the Christian church had much to do with until about the 12th century, when the presence of a priest became mandatory. Even so, the key part of the ceremony was the public declaration of commitment between the two people concerned. And it still is. Throughout most of history, two people who had made a public declaration of commitment to each other- even in a relatively subtle way such as living together- would be considered to be married, with no religious ceremony required. That was a much later development. People would often want the blessing of their god/s at the time of this public declaration, of course, but they would also want such a blessing at the start of any new venture like going on a long journey or starting a business. But that doesn't make travelling or business religious institutions. Have a look at these two sites- http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html http://rationalreasons.blogspot.com/2005/05/brief-history-of-marriage.html Then do your own research to double check, if you want (good academic practice).

• Nowhere in the Bible does it specify "homosexuality", it speaks in general terms about adultery and "free sex", read it without your preconceived notions people.

• Just stay in your closet, pal. We don't need anymore homosexual pedophiles like you and Jerry Sandusky, Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy running around, ok?

• No wonder why this country is going down the toilet. Doing what you please comes before taking into consideration any consequences to your actions. Will bestiality and pedophilia be allowed in society next, after all this "gay marriage" BS.

• Amy Koch believes this amendment should be added to the Minnesota Constitution as a defense of the sanctity of marriage.  She would like to defend the sanctity of marriage against A, which undermines the sanctity of marriage; but would not like to defend the sanctity of marriage against B, in which she engages.  Amy Koch's marriage is a common example of why sanctity of marriage is a silly concept, in general.  It is not rational to say Amy Koch is wrong about SSM because Amy Koch is a hypocrite (ad hominem).  It is legitimate to say Amy Koch is wrong about SSM undermining sanctity of marriage, because sanctity of marriage is already untenable to begin with.

• In the Books of Moses, two of the opposite sex having sex are considered already married at the time of the activity.  So are they Bigamists by Moses definition?  The demise of the institution of marrage has nothing to do with gay people.  It has to do with warped heterosexuals.  Studies have also shown recently that more and more hetero couples are just shacking up with each other and not getting marriage licenses.  There are a lot of little kids out there who's parents (sperm and egg doners) are not married and were not married at the time of conception.

• It doesn't matter that YOU think it's a stupid argument, Cameron.  It doesn't matter what you think the reason for the letter is either.  Your opinion is subjective and doesn't hold up to the laws of logic.  You can ask 50 different people what they thought the reason for the letter was and you can get 50 different answers.  The bottom line is that the letter is logically fallacious, no matter how neat and awesome and cool you think it is.  You can't change that fact just because you don't like it.  It fails logically.  Prove that it doesn't and maybe someone will take you seriously.  But if all you've got is "you made a crappy argument" then all you've got is subjectivism. And you probably don't need me to tell you that subjectivism is a logical fallacy as well, do you?  Basic laws of logic, my friend. 

• Tjswift, transmission of STDs is lower between women and women than between men and women.  I guess God loves lesbians best.  By your logic the only lesbians relationships should be acceptable.  Less STDs and it would ensure that all children are planned and wanted.

• That's an incredibly....stupid argument. The reason for the letter was not a "You cheated, homosexuality is morally right." It was a jab at how those that claim they stand for their personal ideas of morality often undermine those very principals with their own actions. AS WELL as the fact that the argument from the religious right about gay marriage was that it underminded heterosexual marriage. Ergo the letter. The problem isn't over educating our youth. It's you made a crappy argument.

• Ehh, not so much. Have a look at the CDC's disease surveillance  reports..."being "is costing hundreds of lives and billions of dollars every year. Neeext!

• If I were part of the gay community I don't think I would be thrilled about being represented by Mr. Medeiros's letter. It is non-sensical, juvenile, and not very well written. It needlessly inflates a simple bit of irony - that someone who claims to value the sanctity of marriage for political purposes violated that very sanctity by adultery - into a meaningless diatribe that does nothing to further the cause of gay marriage. Start a conversation it has, but is it the right conversation?

• Yes, let's engage in misgoynistic slurs. It really helps promote equality.

• Ba-zing. |3

• There is nothing Republican about the GOP in 2012... the party has been hijacked. Time to get all of those buffoons re-elected. 

• Do you realize that 98% of those who actually read the bible don't understand it? 

• This is simply not true. The commandment Jesus most wanted us to follow - love thy neighbor. There are no exceptions to this. Love each other. We may know that same-sex "marriage" is impossible, but that will never mean we dont love our brothers and sisters with same-sex attraction.

• Didn't you guys know? Only the new testament matters!

• This is a classic ad hominem logical fallacy, so the ridiculous letter means nothing.  An ad hominem attack looks like this: (X says p) + (X has some negative trait) = p is false.  In this story: The lady (X) says that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman (p).  The lady has an affair (X has a negative trait).  Marriage is not defined as being between a man and a woman (p is false).  This is what is wrong with our educational system today.  We are over-educating our youth, and yet we're not teaching them basic logical principles.  No one is saying that what the woman did was right, but the wrong she did doesn't make homosexuality right.  If you want to say that homosexuality is o.k., then by all means do so.  Just don't make yourself sound so silly with a logically fallacious argument.   

• Like times ten thousand.

•  I'm sorry, we'll need to know your five year-old's opinion on this. You've already established him as the arbiter of all political discourse.

• Equivocation fail.  Drunk driving endangers others, being fabulous does not.

• What is despicable, is to deny your constituents the right to marry the person that they love, while you are committing adultery and protraying yourself as someone who upholds family values.  I hope they both end up at the Red Door clinic with some form of VD.

• Ah yes, another 'I refuse to see the utter hypocrisy' post. 

• Or, they're fully aware of the irony, but refuse to even acknowledge it.

• I literally, every time, assume people like you are just repressed 'fags' full of confusion and self loathing.  See: Haggard, Ted How's that pray away the gay going for you?

• Sure... just make sure to trade in your marriage certificate for a 'Civil Union' certificate just like the rest of us... oh wait, you meant Civil Unions for *us* and Marriage for *you*?  Hmmm... didn't we already try 'separate but equal'?

•  Let's hope that only five year-olds vote on the SSM Amendment. The rest of us don't recognize your authority. As voters, we are all on equal footing with Amy Koch, and you. Your analogy is exceptionally weak. We are not children, and Amy Koch is not our parent. Are you claiming some kind of authority (parental or otherwise) over adult Minnesotans? If not, your not-so-funny analogy kind of falls apart, doesn't it?

•  This is exactly the point that needed to be made. It soars over the heads of the conservatives commenting here.

• null, most alcoholics didn't choose their addiction...should we give them a pass to drive drunk?

• I get that same kind of wit from my five year old when I tell him it's time to go to bed. I'm sure he'll be happy to learn there is someone out there that sees the logic in his argument.

• C. Anthony Null, age 58, Corinth, MS here!! I do not usually comment on someone elses marital discord. But, cannot help myself. To paraphrase a great man and prophet. "He who hath no sin, cast the first stone." It is wise to be sure you own doorstep is clean before you fling dirt on to anothers. Also, do not live in glass houses if you do not want others to see how you live, or be sure your drapes are tightly closed. All my life I have tried my best to treat others as I would like to be treated. I do not shout my life from the roof tops, nor do I hide my life. Yes, I am a gay man. I do live in the deep south in the so called bible belt. I also do agree that equality is needed for all americans. Times have changed, but not enough. I did not choose to be a gay man. This is how God in his mighty wisdom and grace made me.

• Using your political power to  condemn and oppress others based on your own superstitions is pretty bad, too.

• It is sad, but it's more sad that Koch callously judged and blamed an entire class of human beings, and denied them equal rights to the rest of us, based on principles she herself did not live by.

• Why should we have to?

• No one is laughing Amy Koch for dying slowly from a painful disease because she made a human mistake.  People are laughing because she judged and blamed others harshly based on principles that she herself did not live by, and her punishment was that she lost the power to govern the people she judged.  How can you know if her act was a mistake or intentional?  Does it matter?  I'm sure lots of people "choose" to be homosexual because of the attention that it gets them   - getting mocked, judged, insulted, beaten up, raped, killed, disowned by family, scorned by religious community, not allowed to marry, told they're going to be punished by god, etc.  Do some research.  It's already been proven that homosexuality is biological.  Even if it weren't, why would you care?

• So Koch wasn't self-righteous in condemning them first?

• Biologically, it's now proven that homosexuality is almost never simply a "lifestyle choice."  Theological, nothing makes sense, because the existence of god has never been proven nor has any one religion been proven to be any more correct than any other.    From a plumbing point of view, I think homosexuals manage. The real question is this:  Why do so many people get so worked up about what other people do in bed?

• So what you're saying is that people should be able to condemn entire classes of people based on principles they don't live by themselves, and never have that hypocrisy pointed out to them?

• There are issues that are arguably more important, however that doesn't mean this issue can't also be addressed.  It is an injustice that gay couples can't marry, and it would be tragic to ignore this one injustice just because there might be larger ones at work.

• I think the point is that gay people being allowed to marry in no way undermines the seriousness of anyone's heterosexual marriage, but Koch claimed otherwise, while hypocritically undermining her own hetero marriage.  It might have been mean if they had picked on someone random, but this woman made baseless accusations against homosexuals and tried to prevent them from having the right to marry, which they deserve.  People need to be shown their own hypocrisy so they can stop committing it.

• What's stupid about it?  I think it's pretty great that these people made a witty commentary on the hypocritical behavior of someone who was treating them like second-class citizens.

• What Koch was doing to the gay community was far worse than writing them a snarky letter.

• If you're gonna talk trash about other people and then go out and act like a ho' well you need to at least keep it on the down low!

• Well, at least there's someone in the GOP who likes to screw members of the opposite sex. Give her that credit.....

• Hide your kids... before they get gay married! http://revoltoftheimbeciles.blogspot.com/2011/05/parsing-gay-marriage-all-our-base-are.html

• Just nasty all the way around. I hate to see the gay community trying to descend to the same levels as the self-proclaimed "right" folks. Gotchas are disgusting, whoever perpetrates them.

• LOL @ James

• Wish I was gay so that I could appreciate this even MORE!  Her blatant hypocrisy is stunning!

• She was trying to push a constitutional amendment through which would have made gay marriage illegal because the institution is "sacred." Then she went and broke the number one rule adultery. Sure it was a dick move but her actions were far more despicable

• This is rude and immature. Those who wrote this in the gay community should be ashamed. Laughing at other's pain and misery is despicable.

• yeah i know such a loving god.

• Judging by reading the posts, I believe that James may have meant that the letter was in poor taste, not that it was poorly written. I must agree with everyone else that this was written with an overwhelmingly sarcastic tone and should be read as such. Also, generally speaking, people will use the argument that allowing gay marriage would ruin the sacrament of marriage. This letter sarcastically demonstrates that heterosexual people are able to ruin the sacrament of marriage all on their own, therefore making that particular argument against gay marriage null and void.

• Self-righteous pricks? Look in the  mirror myelfb.

TotalComments: 100