This book was a holiday gift for which I had already written a thank-you card before so much as skimming the contents. I put the book back in its original box and forgot about it, literally, until today. I was on the hunt for a hoped-for stray chocolate bar and found the book instead. The fact that I feel the need to explain that the chocolate bar was entirely wishful thinking, instead of reviewing the book outright, demonstrates my indifference to the book. I'm going to mention the book in a letter to the person who gave it to me, but in such a way that it's a clear "Hey. Remember that gift? I read it. I acknowledge your gift again. That means I originally forgot it. I still love you and I'm touched that you got it for me" only nicer.

(goes back and reads what he just wrote) Wow. I can be a jerk. To be fair, I'm in a sour mood and it's not just me; it's the entire city dealing with disaster weather. We're not sure when it's gonna end. So. This book is about a specific part of the overall battle to legalize gay marriage. I was annoyed when I discovered I'd misread the book flap, but resolved to read the book because it would be a snapshot of an important history. There were some clearly hidden expectations that surged forth as I read. These expectations were very unhappy about not being met. I'm not saying at all straight journalists can't or shouldn't write about the fight for gay marriage; far from. And I didn't think that when it was going on. I was really glad for any help the cause received. -This- particular journalist, however, comes across as only having gotten involved for the possibility of a big, juicy story. "I'm straight, of course, but indeed have gay and lesbian friends," is invoked -fast.- And that was barely paraphrasing what he said. Huge chunks of text take up pages in the form of direct quotes and are only split by flowery descriptions of who's talking and why. It's not fun to read. After twenty-five pages, all I could think was, "I remember when this was happening big-time fifteen years ago in (my city and state). Someone eloquently commented that history would not look kindly on gay marriage being so disdained and restricted. History would look poorly upon straight journalists chasing after a big reward rather than support the community." I do think the author was trying to humanize and empathize with what was going on and who he was writing about. I also think he failed due to a variety of writing choices. It read like a really, really long newspaper article rather than a nonfiction book. Not only that, it read like an -old- newspaper article. I can't figure out why I didn't connect to this more and I'm annoyed. ( )