Mother's Day Comedy Clip: "My Son Is Gay!" - The Village Voice

Contents:

• OY VEY! MY SON IS GAY!!
• MOTHER’S DAY COMEDY CLIP: “MY SON IS GAY!”
• GAY-RIGHTS GROUP TO JOHN ROBERTS: EVERYONE'S NOT 'FALLG OVER THEMSELV' TO BACK GAY MARRIAGE
• CHIEF JTICE JOHN ROBERTS COMPAR GAY MARRIAGE TO FORCG A CHILD TO CALL SOMEONE ‘A FRIEND’
• A SECRET AL BETWEEN JTIC JOHN ROBERTS AND ANTHONY KENNEDY ON GAY RIGHTS AND WHAT MEANS TODAY
• JOHN ROBERTS’S FULL-THROATED GAY MARRIAGE DISSENT: CONSTUTN ‘HAD NOTHG TO DO WH ’
• HOW WOULD JOHN ROBERTS RULE ON GAY-MARRIAGE CAS?
• JTICE ROBERTS' LBIAN CO TO ATTEND GAY MARRIAGE ARGUMENTS

OY VEY! MY SON IS GAY!!

Even if ed recycled subplots om other ethnic edi about fai g to terms wh a son who announc he's gay and a son pg wh their rponse to the news, wh this st, uld have at least achieved medcry. It was ham- fisted, poorly timed and sophomoric. My Son Is Gay!!

MOTHER’S DAY COMEDY CLIP: “MY SON IS GAY!”

Though not a Not Ready for Prime Time Player jt yet, ’s safe to say you should keep an eye out for Roberts, who sat down wh Queerty to discs his edic origs and expla that homophobia edy might not be as bad as you’ve heard. As a gay edian, have you enuntered a lot of problems wh that? It’s not like I have a bunch of of gay edy iends; all my iends edy, no matter what their orientatn, only re if you’re funny.

So do you thk maybe edy is more sexist than homophobic? Maybe ’s bee I’m gay. Bee SNL has been acced of homophobia the past, do you thk your sexualy had anythg to do wh you not gettg the gig?

GAY-RIGHTS GROUP TO JOHN ROBERTS: EVERYONE'S NOT 'FALLG OVER THEMSELV' TO BACK GAY MARRIAGE

SNL has fely been acced of homophobia the past, but I don’t thk that they necsarily are. I n’t image the people that work at that show are homophobic.

I’m pretty sure had nothg to do wh homophobia; I didn’t feel exclud at all. See, I don’t look at that stuff as beg homophobic—I thk that’s jt not funny.

As Roberts repeats “My son is gay! WASHINGTON -- The way Chief Jtice John Roberts se , gay rights advot have pretty easy.

CHIEF JTICE JOHN ROBERTS COMPAR GAY MARRIAGE TO FORCG A CHILD TO CALL SOMEONE ‘A FRIEND’

Referrg to the "sea change" public opn about gay marriage, Roberts said durg oral arguments on Wednday the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) se that policians were "fallg over themselv" to endorse gay marriage. "Brian Moulton, legal director for the Human Rights Campaign, said 's important to take a step back when takg a look at the polil power held by gay-rights supporters, llg Roberts' ments "tratg. On MSNBC’s Andrea Mchell Reports Tuday afternoon, fill- host Chris Cillizza played some sound, om today’s oral arguments on Proposn 8, which Roberts par gay marriage rights to forcg a child to ll someone a iend.

Hodg landmark lg, to steer the urt’s oute a pair of key gay rights disput. The negotiatns those s, not prevly reported, offer a glimpse to tra-offs among jtic, monstrate the chief’s soft power of persuasn and show that the urt’s sentiment on gay rights issu n be both ght and evolvg. Meanwhile, Kennedy would vote for the urt to hear the appeal of the owner of Masterpiece Cakhop Colorado, who’d been sanctned for refg to bake a weddg ke for two gay men.

The acceptance of an appeal om a baker who had refed to create a ke for a gay uple based on relig objectns uld easily have led to a public perceptn of new Supreme Court hostily toward gay rights. The backstory of two gay rights s handled tanm 2017 has new salience today.

A SECRET AL BETWEEN JTIC JOHN ROBERTS AND ANTHONY KENNEDY ON GAY RIGHTS AND WHAT MEANS TODAY

Kennedy had been the voice of the urt’s progrsive gay rights lgs datg to 1996. Colorado Civil Rights Commissn was brought by a baker, Jack Phillips, who had been sanctned unr Colorado law for refg to create a ke for two gay men celebratg their marriage. Phillips argued that beg forced to provi a weddg ke to a gay uple vlated his nstutnal rights to the ee exercise of relign and ee speech.

He’d prevly told lleagu that he was skeptil of relig exemptns for retailers who would ny servic to gay people. “The oute of s like this other circumstanc mt awa further elaboratn the urts, all the ntext of regnizg that the disput mt be rolved wh tolerance, whout undue disrpect to scere relig beliefs, and whout subjectg gay persons to digni when they seek goods and servic an open market, ” Kennedy wrote, reflectg his ntued tentativens. Gsburg and Sotomayor were the only dissenters, homg on the bias the gay men faced: “What matters, ” Gsburg wrote, “is that Phillips would not provi a good or service to a same-sex uple that he would provi to a heterosexual uple.

JOHN ROBERTS’S FULL-THROATED GAY MARRIAGE DISSENT: CONSTUTN ‘HAD NOTHG TO DO WH ’

Roberts's unequivol disagreement is somewhat startlg, pecially as the nservative-leang jtice seemed to be searchg for a middle ground jt a few months ago durg oral arguments on the se, reported The Washgton Post's Robert chief jtice has a particular obligatn "to try to achieve nsens, " Roberts has Roberts didn't agree wh the Supreme Court's 2013 cisn to expand feral rights to legally married gay upl. "The Supreme Court's gay marriage cisn explaed 60 sends. Often the first qutn the lawyers Ted Olson and David Boi get when they talk about their effort to overturn California’s anti-gay Proposn 8 is this: Are there five vot on the Supreme Court for their se?

There are two big gay-rights s headg for the Court. But there is ltle doubt that if the Court l favor of gay rights the cisn will be signifint, perhaps even historic.

Most people assume that the fifth and cidg vote belongs to Jtice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the Court’s majory opns s two most recent big gay-rights lgs, Romer v.

HOW WOULD JOHN ROBERTS RULE ON GAY-MARRIAGE CAS?

None of the gay-rights-related s that have e before him as a judge give any signifint clu as to how he might le on the weighty nstutnal issu he will face next term. Intertgly, as the Los Angel Tim reported 2005, before he was on the bench he “worked behd the scen for gay rights activists” the Romer se who were reprented at the time by his law firm, Hogan and now, the marquee gay-rights s facg the Court next term—as Amerin public opn, pecially among young people, shifts rapidly towards greater equaly—Roberts may fd the very kd of “legacy” issu around which he has shown a willgns to break wh his more nservativ lleagu. ” Although he go on to discs this ngy a different ntext, he has been hypothizg for some time that the fluenc on Chief Jtice Roberts the health-re se might also lead him to le favor of the rights of gay Amerins to full equaly, cludg marriage.

In the ntext of public opn on gay rights and same-sex marriage, twenty years is a very long they ci agast the rights of gay people next term, wh a or so this issue is gog to be right back before the Court and Jtice Roberts will likely still be Chief.

For example, took seventeen years for the “wrongly cid” gay-sodomy issue (Bowers v. 5 per cent a year acrdg to some timat), that uld put equal rights for gays, cludg marriage, at about a sixty-five per cent or higher approval he l agast gay rights now, how is Roberts gog to feel about the overturng of this precent later—or havg overturned while he is still on the Court as Chief?

JTICE ROBERTS' LBIAN CO TO ATTEND GAY MARRIAGE ARGUMENTS

This is the gay-rights moment, jt as the sixti was the civil-rights moment (although there are plac, like the South, where public opn is ntrary, as was those landmark civil-rights s) theorize that Roberts tried to policize the Court wh his health-re lg orr to ga some credibily before even more nservative cisns to e, like overturng affirmative actn. Anythg is possible, but that is not likely to be the oute the gay-rights s, where Jtice Kennedy will probably not be wh nservativ.