Book Publisher Cancels Release of Novel Rather Than Allow Gay Author to Mention His ‘Partner’ in Bio

David Powers King and Michael Jensen were in the final stages of publishing their young-adult fantasy novel Woven when they saw a mistake on the back cover.

The biographical information for King was fine, but Jensen’s was missing this line: “He lives in Salt Lake City with his boyfriend and their four dogs.”

The Acquisitions Editor for publisher Cedar Fort, Inc. told him the reason in an email:

I was concerned about your bio and wondered what effect it would have with our [Mormon] buyers, so I spoke with [Cedar Fort owner] Lyle [Mortimer] about it. He says we can’t risk ruining our relationship with them by stating you live with your boyfriend, so we need to cut that part out.

Jensen suggested replacing the word “boyfriend” with “partner” (which is what his bio said in the book proposal) but the publishers would have none of it. They didn’t want to publish even a hint that one of their authors was gay. They cater to an LDS audience, after all, and they obviously didn’t want to burn any bridges.

The authors (rightly) refused to budge any further with the bios, so there was a phone call to discuss the situation, which the authors have summarized like this on their website:

Mr. Jensen called Cedar Fort‘s owner, Lyle Mortimer, and asked why he was being treated differently from Mr. King. “The conversation really devolved quickly,” says Mr. Jensen. “Lyle started yelling about my ‘agenda’ and how I was trying to destroy families. He even started saying inappropriate things about how God had given me a penis for a reason. It was very uncomfortable. Then he threatened to publish Woven without our names attached or without our bios at all — rather than print that one sentence. He told me that if he decided not to publish because of this, I‘d have to buy back the rights to our book and reimburse him for his work so far, and that would cost me thousands of dollars.”

Jensen argues that bending over backwards like this to try and appease a Mormon book chain, even for a publisher that caters to an LDS crowd, really makes no sense:

… I would imagine that major national retailers, like Barnes & Noble and, might hesitate to continue dealing with a publisher whose practices are so egregiously incongruous with their own adopted corporate philosophies on the subject of gay equality (I’m sure you’re aware that last year Jeff Bezos personally donated $2.5 million dollars in support of same-sex marriage in Washington state).

Fair point. As it stands, the authors now have the rights to their book back, so they’re shopping for a new publisher. But really, Jensen and King don’t even need one at this point. With this story, they have some publicity. Might as well just pay someone to design a new cover, slap their unedited bios on it, and publish it themselves ASAP.

Let Cedar Fort take the hit for siding with bigotry instead of the merits of the novel.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • Artor

    I wonder if Cedar Fort can be sued for breach of contract? I assume they signed something agreeing to market and publish the book. By refusing to do so over this, aren’t they in default?

  • cipher

    So, he lives in Salt Lake City, surrounded by Mormons, went to a publisher that caters to them – and he didn’t anticipate any problems?

    Meanwhile, the previous post deals with a man who was murdered for opposing a supernatural worldview.

  • observer

    “how I was trying to destroy families”

    If your family structure is so weak, that a gay author giving thanks to his partner in his book will cause your family to fall apart, I think it’s safe to say the problem with your family is something else entirely different.

  • Gus

    What was he thinking writing for this publisher in the first place? What is he thinking even writing the kind of thing they want to publish?

    If he wants to force them to change, or demonstrate how craven they are, that’s certainly understandable, and more power to him, but really, there’s no shortage of publishers who don’t care about your personal life. It’s time to look at the people you’re righting for and judge them by their actions. And once you’ve done that, ask yourself about the church you belong to and what they believe and how they behave. If they want to silence you for loving someone different, do you really think that anything they do or say is actually inspired by a god worth following?

    Get out and let them fail as the gay exodus deprives them of talent.

    I feel the same way about my own state and other’s who’ve banned gay marriage, by the way. I would hate to see my gay friends and family leave the state, and what the state would be without them, but we need a gay exodus to make the conservatives choose between the religious right and the economy.

  • Bitter Lizard

    It’s true that the publisher probably has a legal right to this particular act of idiocy, and I wouldn’t think anyone would say this is a travesty on par with murdering someone. But there’s nothing wrong with helping the gay writer get a little extra publicity so he can get his revenge and rub their faces in it.

  • Albert

    If Cedar Fort was sued and told to publish the book, this would not be a huge win for the author. In fact, it could be detrimental for the his sales. If the target audience is LDS and his views are different than theirs his book could have been sitting on a shelf and then sold at used books store all over because the target audience would not have bought the book if the bio was a deciding factor in it.

    The author King and Jensen are better off to walk away and find another publisher. Perhaps maybe take Cedar Fort to court for punitive damages.

  • cipher

    There was idiocy demonstrated in this situation, and it wasn’t restricted to the publisher.

  • Rain

    The “LDS” needs to join the 21st century. Oh wait they’re a religion and they think they are saints. (Hence the “S” in the “LDS”.) Oh isn’t that special!

  • Gus

    Man, love the way I spelled “writing”. How to make yourself look like an ignoramus: Don’t go small with “their, there, they’re” or “its, it’s” mistakes, go all the way with “write, right”.

  • Cake

    Really? He mentioned he was gay in the proposal, submitted it to a publisher, and it was accepted. At what point was the author an idiot, before or after it was accepted by the publisher?

  • jferris

    I think the publisher can refuse the business if they want. I think the writers can find someone else to take the novel, publish it, and hopefully laugh all the way to the bank. As for the writer not realizing there would be a problem pointing out their homosexual relationship to a publisher that caters to a religious group….yeah, I think that got glossed over by a “the world is a fair and open place” mindset. Unfortunately, that was something he should not have had to worry about, I hope he realizes that the world is not yet as tolerant as it should be.

  • Bitter Lizard

    I don’t feel like I can pass judgment on the intelligence of the writer based on the information in this post. Remember that most people have limited career options, and it’s likely this wouldn’t have been his first choice of publisher anyway.

  • Nate Frein

    We’re speculating a lot on what went on with the book proposal in general.

    This is a co-written book. There are two authors involved. We have no idea who shopped for a publisher and the situation the authors were in when this particular publisher decided to pick them up.

  • Spuddie

    That was my first thought as well. Its even worse when you check out the publisher’s website. They specialize in appealing to the LDS crowd. Its like trying to the works of Elie Wiesel published in National Vanguard Press (The publishers of the bigoted screed The Turner Diaries)

    My thoughts are either the author was setting himself up for controversy or was so desperate to get published that he didn’t care who offered to do it.

  • Spuddie

    If they are sued, Cedar Fort could be made to pay damages if the subsequent deal is for less money or less favorable. If the authors come out with a more favorable deal with another publisher, there is not much in terms of contractual damages other than the lost time.

    The publicity may open up a new market for the book for gay readers. Its not like Cedar Fort would promote much for their readership.

  • Spuddie

    It was idiocy of the authors to market their book to a publisher specializing in LDS religious based literature given their stance on gays. It was idiocy of the publishers to accept a contract only to weasel out of it because they didn’t originally bother to vet their authors.

  • cipher

    What Spuddie said.

  • Ani J. Sharmin

    It’s not exactly easy to find a publisher who’ll publish your book. They probably couldn’t just limit themselves to only considering companies that were totally LGBT friendly. I noticed on the author section of their website that Jensen taught at BYU. Who knows? He may even be LDS himself.

  • Jim

    Self publish that thing via Amazon and B&N. I’ll buy it.

  • ZeldasCrown

    It’s not as though an author’s personal life changes any of the content of a book. If Mr. Jensen is truthful, and uses the word “boyfriend”, or is generic and uses “partner”, or lies and uses “girlfriend” or “wife”, or just leaves it out altogether, implying that he lives alone, nothing about him or the book’s message changes. And, apparently, since the company agreed to publish the book, they don’t take any issue to its content.

    Personally, I feel like the option of writing “partner”, instead of “boyfriend”, is a pretty good middle ground (which the author apparently agreed with). Partner can indicate male or female (or something else outside of the traditional gender binary), as well as married or unmarried-it’s truly the most generic way to acknowledge a significant other without implying anything specific. So it seems the issue is more than Mr. Jensen exists/isn’t faking being straight to their satisfaction (and if there’s no wording option the company would agree to, it begs the question of why they said they would publish the book in the first place).

  • cipher

    He may even be LDS himself.

    Well, that makes it even less excusable, wouldn’t you say? He should have known better.

    In any case, what you and others are saying is valid – he might not have had other options.

  • Spuddie

    Not to cast aspersions on the motivations of the authors, but a book written in a very crowded and currently popular genre now gets attention of a larger demographic of readership than intended. It now has garnered more publicity than if Cedar Fort had just put it out as originally expected.

    The Harry Potter and Hunger Games books had to rely primarily on word of mouth before they broke out of the youth fiction market ghettos.

    Just sayin.

  • Bitter Lizard

    I don’t know why you’re getting the down votes on this post–I admire the fact that you tempered your position a little after being presented with arguments. And I sort of agree that being a Mormon himself just raises more questions, although being a gay any-kind-of-Christian will never make sense to me.

  • cipher

    Yeah. Well, we atheists are a fickle lot!

  • Albert

    I agree.

  • Levon Mkrtchyan

    I’m noticing some commenters that the authors were stupid for not expecting this, stupid for going with this publisher in the first place. This is a form of victim-blaming. Stop.

  • Levon Mkrtchyan

    So if you’re not trying to cast aspersions on the motivations of the authors, then what is the point of your post? It sure seems like that’s precisely what you’re trying to do. If that’s not what you’re trying to do, you should reconsider your presentation.

  • Bitter Lizard

    If he was an already famous author with a lot of options, it would make sense for him to choose a non-LDS publisher instead. But this just most likely isn’t the case. It reminds me of the McDonald’s employees wanting a higher minimum wage and people telling them to just “get another job if they don’t like it”. Right, because someone chooses McDonald’s over a bunch of higher-paying jobs because it’s their passion.

  • Spuddie

    I am less inclined to go with victim blaming as I am for deliberately setting up publicity to promote the book and shop it around to a wider range of publishers.

    It is difficult for literature marketed to religiously conservative least youth, to break out into the mainstream. (Left Behind and Twilight are the exceptions) It would have been difficult to garner much publicity for the book if it had been published as originally intended.

  • MartinRC

    The Publisher caters to them, but also state they publish other books.

    They have several lines of books based on who they are catering to.

    “Cedar Fort began in 1986 with Lyle Mortimer and Lee Nelson working together to release the book Beyond the Veil, Volume 1. Since then, Cedar Fort has grown and currently produces uplifting fiction and non-fiction books that are known across the globe. We have a solid catalog of LDS fiction and non-fiction, general release titles, including cookbooks, clean romance, and young adult adventures, and an LDS-oriented product line.”

    And they also made the contract with the bio stating partner in the first place. The author was the one misled so of course he shouldn’t anticipate any problems.. But it is good he got the rights back, Cedar Fort is going to regret their decision when this book is bought up by everyone just to spite them.

  • JET

    As someone once said, there’s no such thing as bad publicity. If this exchange between the authors and the publisher gets enough attention, I can imagine it doing nothing but good for the book’s sales. All it takes is for a company like Amazon to pick it up and promote it on their front page. This particular genre is overflowing with good, bad, and mediocre material. Sometimes it pays to have a gimmick, and the authors may have just found one, intentional or not.

  • Spuddie

    True. But not in a confrontational accusatory way. =)
    It may not be the case, but I am skeptical.

    Publicity is everything for people who work in the media. There is no bad publicity. Bookshelves are filled with young adult fantasy literature which goes unnoticed. Its a popular genre with tons of people trying to be the next JK Rowling or Suzanne Collins. For every one of them there are dozens of people who are struggling to get some recognition.

    The authors have a legitimate gripe. A contract is a contract. But it definitely has an opportunity in disguise sort of feel to it.

  • Levon Mkrtchyan

    “deliberately setting up publicity to promote the book” <- victim blaming

    Until I see evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to think that the authors were NOT deliberately setting up publicity to promote the book. You're choosing to assume the worst about the authors in order to shift the blame onto them. That's victim blaming.

  • Bitter Lizard

    Also, since nobody’s mentioned it, can we at least agree that the straight author did a cool thing by standing with his gay friend on this?

  • Bitter Lizard

    Your theory would seem to contradict the way things were actually purported to go down in this post, which would mean that the authors were lying. I really don’t see any need to jump to that conclusion without evidence.

  • JET

    It’s impossible to know whether the controversy surrounding this book was intentional or not and it really makes no difference. Unless an author has actually written something remarkable, it’s difficult to get attention in a market that’s saturated. If the authors engineered this, I commend them for their creativity. If it was accidental, I congratulate them on their luck. Either way, their book sales will go up and that’s what every author wants.

  • Spuddie

    I am not saying they were lying at all. For all we know the publishers were well aware the authors were gay and was willing to publish the book anyway.

    I am saying that it could be a somewhat fabricated conflict. The authors were making a big stink about paring down the author bio because the publishers recognized their projected readership are generally openly bigoted.

    I would not be surprised if Cedar Fort’s actions are typical of how LDS publishers handle gay authors. But I would be surprised if this is the first time the authors have dealt with this considering where they live.

  • Spuddie

    Its a personal take on the events. I am the first to admit there is no evidence of it.

    I assume the worst because the people are working in the media and publicity/promotion is part of that work.

  • Spuddie

    Plus if the authors can profit off of exposing bigotry to public view, more power to them.

  • Adam Rubin

    This isn’t a gay couple going into a Mormon temple and insisting that they be married there. It’s not even a book with overtly gay characters or otherwise “gay” themes (going based on the reporting here). It’s a line in a bio.

    I don’t think the publisher should be forced to publish the book, but the reaction seems to have been way over the top. Do you really think it’s the author’s fault that the publisher felt it necessary to lecture him on the function of a penis?

  • JET

    They are desperately trying to be viewed as members of the 21st century, at least the religious 21st century (oxymoron alert). Thus the deliberate attempt on their part to hide their history and the actual tenets of their religion from the world and even their members. Go Internet!

  • Spuddie

    I don’t think the publisher should be forced to publish the book, but the reaction seems to have been way over the top

    But a contract is a contract. The publishers contracted to publish the book, they have to abide by its terms or pay penalties for not doing so.

    This means publishing the book they obtained the rights to in exchange for monetary consideration. Damages could be being forced to publish it (specific performance), money damages or some kind of mutual settlement.

    Do you really think it’s the author’s fault that the publisher felt it necessary to lecture him on the function of a penis?

    If you felt any lecture of that kind was “necessary”, then you deserve whatever penalties such offensive behavior would bring. In this case negative publicity. There is behavior expected among professionals and behavior a hateful jerk.

  • Bdole

    Yeah, after I made my first million in the commodities (pork-bellies) market I decided I’d give the old fry-flingin’ biz a go. No sooner did I put my resume out there, a headhunter from BK (Burger King) scooped me up at $20k per annum, that’s NET, buddy. I didn’t forget the little things, either. My contract includes perks like getting lunch service every workday.

  • Ani J. Sharmin

    Yes, what Levon and Bitter Lizard said here.

    This is what bothers me about the comments about them both being at fault and/or doing it for the publicity. There’s a wrong assumption that other options are readily available. Not every author is going to be published by the Big Six of publishing, and it’s difficult to get your book noticed as a new writer. They may not have wanted to limit who they were willing to submit to.

    And once they’ve been discriminated against, what are they supposed to do? Not say anything? Is there any way that a minority person can talk about being discriminated against without people saying they were either partially responsible and/or are just talking about it for publicity? It’s not their fault that there’s anti-LGBT discrimination.

  • Bitter Lizard

    I couldn’t help but troll a Mormon Patheos blog this morning…

  • L.G. Keltner

    I am a follower of David Powers King through his excellent writing blog, and I’ve been keeping up with this mess as it unfolds. If anyone is interested in hearing about what happened in his own words, you can find his post about it here:

  • Spuddie

    The end result of this story is a win for the authors. They get increased attention for their book and it shines a spotlight on bigotry and discrimination of the publishers.

    I am less inclined to give a benefit of a doubt to the authors because the work itself requires a certain level of shamelessness. However, their gripe is legitimate enough and deserves the attention.

  • C.L. Honeycutt

    There’s a wrong assumption that other options are readily available.

    Every time, every time I visit my area bookstore, I hear a group of people, customers, employees, or both, discussing how it’s getting harder and harder to get published and self-publishing is becoming practically a necessity rather than simply a decent option. I don’t know anyone there; it’s simply that big a theme.

  • C.L. Honeycutt

    $20k as a fry-mule? What fantasyland do you live in? :P

  • Peter Eng

    I think the joke here is that he’s in the “fry-flingin’ biz” as a middle manager at the very worst.

  • Tom

    If that description of the publisher’s phone conversation is accurate, it sounds very much like Mr Mortimer *isn’t* doing this just to keep the LDS on good business terms, but is acting on his own bigotry as well. Which makes him seem rather gutless for trying to hide it by saying that first. Why is it so many bigots seem inclined to try to hide their bigotry whenever confronted about it? Are they actually ashamed of it at some level?

  • Stev84

    You may have a point if the book itself dealt with gay issues or characters. But apparently it doesn’t. It’s just the author who is gay, which shouldn’t make any different to anyone.

  • Stev84

    The point to refuse the business is when they buy the rights to a book. Not months later when it’s written and ready to publish.

  • Gus

    Did anybody actually click through to the publisher’s website? Saying they cater to an LDS website seems a bit of an understatement. They’re a Mormon publisher. Who expects a Mormon publisher to be cool with them being gay? Their books are all meant to be Mormon friendly. That means the authors wrote a book that they knew was sanitized enough to be published by a Mormon publisher. This isn’t so much a matter of saying he can just get another publisher, but one of saying he either knowingly went into business with a bigoted organization or he’s extremely naive. Or maybe he did it for the publicity or to out the organization for their bigotry, which frankly I’m totally cool with.

    Not so cool with thinking you can do business with bigots because, you know, they’re not really affecting you personally – until they are.

  • Gus

    We’re missing the fact that he didn’t just choose an LDS publisher because it was the only outlet, he wrote a book that would be picked up by an LDS publisher who only sells sanitized, Mormon approved content. He went into business with bigots. Maybe he didn’t know they were bigots. Now he does, and he’s right to speak out about it, but it’s pretty damned naive not to know by now that the LDS are rife with bigotry.

  • Maria

    While I totally agree with you that he did the right thing in standing by his gay co-author, I’m sort of getting a little tired of straight people expecting cookies and pats on the back for being decent human beings in these situations.

  • David Kopp

    Welcome to religion. It allows you to justify your bigotry and hatefulness under the banner of socially accepted righteousness.

  • David Kopp

    It wouldn’t be an issue if it were the norm. Unfortunately, being a decent person apparently is a fairly rare thing, so it’s good to give props to anyone that does the right thing. Positive reinforcement isn’t a bad thing.

  • Gus

    I’d say it’s the being Mormon in the first place that’s inexcusable: if you are gay and Mormon, your church hates you and you should leave it.

    That’s kind of the root of my take on this story.

  • Bitter Lizard

    Point taken–it really should be the default behavior. Sometimes it’s just a breath of fresh air when somebody does what they should do and, as David says below, a little positive reinforcement doesn’t sound so bad. In my defense, I usually only say negative things about people.

  • Bitter Lizard

    Yes, gay Christians, black Christians, women who follow pretty much any religion–it seems a little masochistic. But it’s not like it’s any better for straight white men to promote that nonsense. I would reword your sentiment to something like, “If you are a person and you follow any religion, you should quit it.”

  • Maria

    Generally I would agree with you, that positive reinforcement is good. Lately, however, I’ve been noticing a trend wherein supposed “allies” to LGBT rights efforts begin acting very entitled to the social praise they get for being decent. I even had someone argue to me recently that a straight ally was a better person/more worthy of praise in fighting for LGBT rights because they’re straight and the rights don’t directly affect them; implying that LGBT people who make efforts to gain fully equal social status are only doing so for “selfish” reasons. As if wanting to be respected with and recognized as having human dignity is “selfish.”

    I was pretty appalled, and now when people make a point to praise straight allies for being decent people, it sort of rubs me the wrong way. Not saying it’s wrong to praise others when they do something decent, but I think we should be aware that the “entitled to praise” and “holier than thou” attitude is starting to crop up amongst some LGBT allies, and be quick to nip that in the bud.

  • Maria

    Definitely. As I commented back to David I don’t generally disagree with you. I’ve just been noticing a troubling trend amongst some LGBT straight allies to feel entitled to praise and acting “holier than thou” towards members of the LGBT community. *shrugs* While a little positive reinforcement can be a good thing, we should be careful not to let it stretch too far to the point that allies start getting arrogant and steam rolling over the feelings of the communities they’re purporting to be supportive of.

  • David Kopp

    Fair enough. Nobody in general should seek praise, IMO. It should be earned. I’m not just a fan of pooh-pooing it in general, though. Human nature cuts in multiple directions ;)

  • Maria

    Oh yeah, for sure. I’m only really big on cutting people down to size when they seem entitled to the praise. And maybe for gently making the argument that we should focus on other things if the discussion about LGBT rights turns into how great the straight ally in the room is. Which didn’t happen here, but I think it’s something to be mindful of in general. :)

  • SeekerLancer

    I’m sure they’ll find a publisher that will be happy to stick it to Cedar Fort and release the book.

  • Bitter Lizard

    Yeah, I’m pretty sure I know what you’re talking about. I’ve noticed a subtle, paternalistic racism in some white liberals who talk about black people like they’re a personal project who need white people to defend them, so it doesn’t surprise me that some straight allies of LGBT people are picking up similar habits.

  • Maria

    For sure, I think it’s definitely the same type of attitude.

  • eeee

    A lot of you are saying “Why’d they use a publisher who caters to the LDS community anyway? What did they expect?” Aside from that being victim-blaming, you may be missing the fact that David Powers King is a member of the LDS church himself. Perhaps the LDS community he is personally familiar with is more tolerant and unbigoted than Mortimer, or perhaps there was some other reason that the Cedar Fort people seemed like a good/the best option to them – but regardless, the fault here lies with Cedar Fort and Mortimer.

    If they don’t want to do business with people based on certain characteristics, then they need to be upfront about that from the get-go. That way these situations can be avoided, authors can work with publishers who won’t yank them around, and people like me can make sure not to ever buy anything from them at all.

  • Jim Jones

    Utah consumes a butt load of porn (pun intended).

  • Jim Jones

    Reminds me of the time I heard some meat puppet on TV refer to “the hero doctors of ‘ER’” – meaning the TV show.

    Yes, actors acting. Very heroic. After that, stuff like this doesn’t faze me.

  • Robster

    What percentage of the US population is afflicted with mormonism? It would have to be pretty small. Surely the percentage that isn’t mormon is a much larger potential market for the novel.

  • wmdkitty

    I see it with ablebodied folks in regards to those of us with disabilities.

  • UWIR

    This is one of those talking points that people think are so clever, but are simply strawman attacks. Clearly, conservatives aren’t concerned about their family falling apart, they’re concerned about the families of in general. The real issue is building an edifice of societal norms on an exclusionary foundation, so that people have to choose between accepting those exclusionary principles, or eroding social institutions.

  • cipher

    BL, look at your previously reply to me. At this point, it has four down-votes, and you didn’t say anything even remotely contentious or controversial.

    This is what dealing with atheists is like. It’s the reason I no longer participate on PZ’s or Ed Brayton’s blogs – there’s too much of this sort of thing. Over there, step out of line (the party line, that is) and they go for the jugular (and both Ed and PZ absolutely refuse to see it). Here, they just tend to get pissy.

    The Christians are right about one thing (and it gives me no pleasure to say it): we tend to turn on our own.

  • TheBlackCat13

    Although the publisher’s behavior was atrocious overall, one thing that bothers me that other people haven’t seemed to notice is how this came to light. The publishers didn’t bring up the issue with the authors, they just editing the sentence out of the bio without telling anyone.

    The book would have gone to press like this if the authors hadn’t carefully read through the bio. So not only was the publisher aware of the issue much earlier and said nothing, they went behind the authors’ backs and tried to cover it up without informing them of the fact.

  • UWIR

    LGBT people could be supporting gay rights on general principle, or simply because it’s in their interests to do so. If a straight person is supporting gay rights, one can more confidently ascribe it to general principle. Given how LGBT groups are often silent or even complicit in anti-atheist bigotry, I don’t think they are entirely motivated by general principle. I don’t see how anyone can seriously think that having the government call one’s relationship a “civil union” rather than a “marriage” is a greater injustice that school reciting the pledge of allegiance. Several LBGT groups endorsed Jerry Brown for governor, despite his anti-atheist bigotry, so apparently they think “ally” means “You help us, but we don’t help you”. A lot of gay activists say that they think that the government shouldn’t get involved in acts between consenting adults, but don’t oppose laws against incest and polygamy. Not only that, when Rick Santorum pointed out this inconsistency, Dan Savage responded with a childish Google bomb campaign. So clearly Savage has a “I got mine, the rest of you are on your own” attitude.

  • Jellyfish Superstar

    “Eroding social institutions.” Should read, “Eroding exclusionary social institutions,” because Conservatives have been against every march to greater liberties since the first slave arrived in the Americas. Marriage as it stands in most states today is exclusionary. Needlessly so.