PDA

View Full Version : California Supreme Court Deems Same-Sex Marraige Legal!



Encaitare
05-15-2008, 08:21 PM
On Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1530409120080516

Ready, set, discuss:

fober
05-15-2008, 08:30 PM
My wife and I are so happy for the majority of this message board's members.

daft$tar
05-15-2008, 08:35 PM
yay who wants to get married?

Pixiessp
05-15-2008, 08:52 PM
great!!!! I already gave back the ring.

Pixiessp
05-15-2008, 08:52 PM
insert sarcasm

Pixiessp
05-15-2008, 08:54 PM
yay who wants to get married?

no marriage but I'll take a kiss.

leo01g
05-15-2008, 09:09 PM
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

summerkid
05-15-2008, 09:12 PM
good news...for once.

betao
05-15-2008, 09:22 PM
sweet.

allyjoy
05-15-2008, 09:26 PM
hazah

Encaitare
05-15-2008, 09:57 PM
Yeah, I nearly cried myself, and I'm only half gay. And already married. It's nice to have something you wanted to happen since you were a child finally come about.

ghettojournalist
05-15-2008, 10:16 PM
sorry to poo-poo the party, but enjoy it while it lasts. there is a proposition coming in November that would make gay marriage illegal according to the state constitution, if approved. start your campaigning.

HAIRYGOOMBA
05-15-2008, 11:07 PM
It's a constitutional amendment, and Schwarzenegger has already stated he will not sign it or support it.

canexplain
05-16-2008, 09:14 AM
It's a constitutional amendment, and Schwarzenegger has already stated he will not sign it or support it.

i think i am right on this .... when the november election comes about, there will be an anti gay marriage vote thingy .... they already have a million plus sigs to put it on the ballot ... if it passes, then what the state surpreme court did will be overturned ... and if it passes, arnold does not have any say either way on the outcome ... so it is up to the voters .... i have always loved women, and never went the other way, ever lol (not homophobic here) but i could really care less what people do in their bedrooms .... to each his and her own .... x****

Hannahrain
05-16-2008, 09:18 AM
It's nice to know that the only thing standing in the way of me marrying a woman is the fact that women are insane.

Young blood
05-16-2008, 09:19 AM
Yeah, I nearly cried myself, and I'm only half gay. And already married. It's nice to have something you wanted to happen since you were a child finally come about.

half gay?

TomAz
05-16-2008, 09:20 AM
Women are the worst people in the world, not counting the men.

Young blood
05-16-2008, 09:21 AM
It's nice to know that the only thing standing in the way of me marrying a woman is the fact that women are insane.

I see what ur doing today and I dig it.

marooko
05-16-2008, 09:22 AM
i love this argument. its never over.




http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j32/carywhitt/fsol.jpg

SFChrissy
05-16-2008, 09:30 AM
GPS...Are we all invited to the wedding??? Coachella wedding here we come!?!?!?

JustSteve
05-16-2008, 09:40 AM
i think if they used the term "civil union" it may pass easier. the problem is with the word "marriage" and all the religious nuts who say the bible describes marriage as between a man and a woman. the people i fucking hate are the nuts who say "well if we allow 2 women or 2 men to get married then how long is it until it's okay for a man to marry his dog if he loves his dog like that? or for a man to marry his 1st cousin...or have multiple wives?". fucking slippery slope bullshit.

Hannahrain
05-16-2008, 09:42 AM
As long as all parties involved are into it, I don't fucking care if a man wants to marry a rhino or a turkey or what have you. Just show me that the rhino wants to marry the man.

marooko
05-16-2008, 09:44 AM
i dont think the slippery slope argument is bullshit at all. they way most argue it is, but not the topic itself.



http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j32/carywhitt/fsol.jpg

SFChrissy
05-16-2008, 09:51 AM
i think if they used the term "civil union" it may pass easier. the problem is with the word "marriage" and all the religious nuts who say the bible describes marriage as between a man and a woman. the people i fucking hate are the nuts who say "well if we allow 2 women or 2 men to get married then how long is it until it's okay for a man to marry his dog if he loves his dog like that? or for a man to marry his 1st cousin...or have multiple wives?". fucking slippery slope bullshit.

For the religious nuts...what 'bout the seperation of religion & government???

algunz
05-16-2008, 09:55 AM
The powers that be will find some way to fuck it up. Much like they did with the legalization of medical marijuana. We voted, but people are still getting prosecuted.

marooko
05-16-2008, 09:56 AM
separation of church and state is about the gov. not promoting any one (1) religion. has nothing to do with "in god we trust" or "one nation under god." not god is specified in either case. the gov. making it law based on the bible, well now thats just intrusion and wrong. the people voting against it, big argument there.

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j32/carywhitt/fsol.jpg

marooko
05-16-2008, 09:57 AM
The powers that be will find some way to fuck it up. Much like they did with the legalization of medical marijuana. We voted, but people are still getting prosecuted.

i fucking hate the way people treat prop. 215. they take so much advantage of it. thats why people are getting fucked with. they're not following the law.



http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j32/carywhitt/fsol.jpg

thefunkylama
05-16-2008, 10:02 AM
ok marooko, we get it. fsol for 09. pls put the graphic away now.

Kali27
05-16-2008, 10:03 AM
[QUOTE=marooko;617767]i fucking hate the way people treat prop. 215. they take so much advantage of it. thats why people are getting fucked with. they're not following the law.

It's very true... when anyone can get a license of course it's not going to be taken seriously... which sucks for real medicinal users.

But on a gay note, I am so happy for all my homosexual friends out there!!

anti-square
05-16-2008, 10:06 AM
People abusing prescribed drugs is not the problem. Them not being over the counter is the problem.

Blinken
05-16-2008, 10:07 AM
I agree about prop 215. I am stoner too, but too many stoners are just taking advantage of this, it will come back and fuck us all over eventually. It is going to make it even harder to get the federal government to take it seriously and pass real medical marijuana laws, which will help lead to legalization eventually.

marooko
05-16-2008, 10:20 AM
People abusing prescribed drugs is not the problem. Them not being over the counter is the problem.

to me, thats the equivalent of saying guns are bad, not the people who misuse them.
















































for you funky.

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j32/carywhitt/fsol.jpg

anti-square
05-16-2008, 10:33 AM
I'm saying the exact opposite. Leave it up to the people to decide whats bad for them.

Blinken
05-16-2008, 10:35 AM
Very true Anti-square but that is not the reality we live in.

PassiveTheory
05-16-2008, 10:39 AM
i think if they used the term "civil union" it may pass easier. the problem is with the word "marriage" and all the religious nuts who say the bible describes marriage as between a man and a woman. the people i fucking hate are the nuts who say "well if we allow 2 women or 2 men to get married then how long is it until it's okay for a man to marry his dog if he loves his dog like that? or for a man to marry his 1st cousin...or have multiple wives?". fucking slippery slope bullshit.

But, conversely, the term of "civil union" is pretty much a dirty word whenever you bring it up in discussions about the subject of gay marriage.

A lot of people just outright reject the notion of civil unions because, in their heads, just by name alone it doesn't merit the same recognition of marriage, and in a way that is true; not all forms of civil unions are guaranteed the same rights as heterosexual marriages.

Still, you can't pursue an alternative when nobody on the beneficiary side wants to fucking consider it...

jackstraw94086
05-16-2008, 10:39 AM
Wouldn'tcha know it. Just like always, the stoners take any discussion of civil liberties and turn it into a druggie bitchfest.

TomAz
05-16-2008, 10:43 AM
Plus they should be free.

bmack86
05-16-2008, 10:44 AM
Weed's a civil liberty brah

marooko
05-16-2008, 10:46 AM
I'm saying the exact opposite. Leave it up to the people to decide whats bad for them.

id be fine with that if i didnt have to take care of people that couldnt control themselves. oh, poor guy. dont put him in jail, he's got an addiction. you're right, put a fucking bullet in his head instead.

chairmenmeow47
05-16-2008, 10:47 AM
i think if they used the term "civil union" it may pass easier. the problem is with the word "marriage" and all the religious nuts who say the bible describes marriage as between a man and a woman. the people i fucking hate are the nuts who say "well if we allow 2 women or 2 men to get married then how long is it until it's okay for a man to marry his dog if he loves his dog like that? or for a man to marry his 1st cousin...or have multiple wives?". fucking slippery slope bullshit.


and hannnah's avatar owns everything in this thread. keep on hecklin, hannah :thu

anti-square
05-16-2008, 10:47 AM
pretty much, just like marriage.

algunz
05-16-2008, 10:48 AM
Wouldn'tcha know it. Just like always, the stoners take any discussion of civil liberties and turn it into a druggie bitchfest.

I think you misunderstood what most of the "stoners" are saying. They're bitching about the druggies, so your whining doesn't seem to quite fit in this instance.

marooko
05-16-2008, 10:48 AM
yeah, talk shit on the stoners while missing the point.

jackstraw94086
05-16-2008, 10:49 AM
But, conversely, the term of "civil union" is pretty much a dirty word whenever you bring it up in discussions about the subject of gay marriage.

A lot of people just outright reject the notion of civil unions because, in their heads, just by name alone it doesn't merit the same recognition of marriage, and in a way that is true; not all forms of civil unions are guaranteed the same rights as heterosexual marriages.

Still, you can't pursue an alternative when nobody on the beneficiary side wants to fucking consider it...

The hypocrisy goes both ways. Gays should not be averse to the language.
Civil union is not a dirty word. This is a legal issue. Anyone claiming a legal difference between a civil union that and "marriage" is a hypocrite if they don't also consider ever secular wedding, including heterosexuals, less worthy of legal rights. By that logic, any man and woman wedded by a judge or ship captain does not deserve the same rights as a a couple wedded by a priest. Even religious people wouldn't dare go that far. Get over it. Get the same rights as "married" couples and stop giving a fuck what it's called.

jackstraw94086
05-16-2008, 10:50 AM
I think you misunderstood what most of the "stoners" are saying. They're bitching about the druggies, so your whining doesn't seem to quite fit in this instance.

give me a fucking break.
Read the title of this thread.

Then go ahead an fail again at justifying bitching about how the man won't lay off your weed.

anti-square
05-16-2008, 10:51 AM
It's about the butt secks. Its always about the butt secks.

jackstraw94086
05-16-2008, 10:51 AM
yeah, talk shit on the stoners while missing the point.

you're talking about drugs and telling me I'm missing the point?

Talk of drugs has no business in this thread. The fact that you are trying to analogize drugs and gay marriage is fucking shameful.

Young blood
05-16-2008, 10:53 AM
taxes and health insurance.

edit: with a dash of butt sex sprinkled on top.

anti-square
05-16-2008, 10:54 AM
The weed helps with the butt secks, so they tell me.

marooko
05-16-2008, 10:55 AM
you're talking about drugs and telling me I'm missing the point?

Talk of drugs has no business in this thread. The fact that you are trying to analogize drugs and gay marriage is fucking shameful.

not the drug itself asshat. the way the legal aspect of it is being taken advantage of. dont focus on the drug. its not an analogy of drugs and marriage, its an analogy of things being taken advantage of.

chairmenmeow47
05-16-2008, 10:56 AM
taxes and health insurance.

seriously. if two people want to make a contract with each other that they can share assets and take care of each other and all that, fine, go for it. but i don't see why there should be ANY benefit tax wise. kids are a different story and should be taken out of the equation of marriage since you don't have to be married to have kids.

health insurance is another issue entirely and i think isn't as important to the marriage debate as taxes. take away the tax issue and the bigots across america will have nothing else to stand on on their crusade against the homosexuals.

Young blood
05-16-2008, 10:58 AM
Amen. Ivy.

PassiveTheory
05-16-2008, 11:00 AM
The hypocrisy goes both ways. Gays should not be averse to the language.
Civil union is not a dirty word. This is a legal issue. Anyone claiming a legal difference between a civil union that and "marriage" is a hypocrite if they don't also consider ever secular wedding, including heterosexuals, less worthy of legal rights. By that logic, any man and woman wedded by a judge or ship captain does not deserve the same rights as a a couple wedded by a priest. Even religious people wouldn't dare go that far. Get over it. Get the same rights as "married" couples and stop giving a fuck what it's called.

You're absolutely right, but that's the problem with emotionally-stirring issues like this: people don't think rationally.

jackstraw94086
05-16-2008, 11:00 AM
not the drug itself asshat. the way the legal aspect of it is being taken advantage of. dont focus on the drug. its not an analogy of drugs and marriage, its an analogy of things being taken advantage of.

ya, I get the whole "legal" thing. Why not talk about gun control? hmmm? Why does it have to be drugs? The government's regulation of drugs and its infringement on your stoner rights has NOTHING to do with with the federal or state government's descrimination against homosexual lifestyle.

algunz
05-16-2008, 11:01 AM
you're talking about drugs and telling me I'm missing the point?

Talk of drugs has no business in this thread. The fact that you are trying to analogize drugs and gay marriage is fucking shameful.

My parallel was made in reference to the way the "laws" have been and will be dealt with, not the content.

As far as the content though - what they do have in common is that they both deal with topics that are considered questionable lifestyles, thus they face considerable persecution from the mainstream. When the "mainstream" doesn't like something, regardless of how the masses vote, they will find a way to circumvent the legalities.

marooko
05-16-2008, 11:02 AM
ya, I get the whole "legal" thing. Why not talk about gun control? hmmm? Why does it have to be drugs? The government's regulation of drugs and its infringement on your stoner rights has NOTHING to do with with the federal or state government's descrimination against homosexual lifestyle.

neither does gun control. good point.

twoheadedboy
05-16-2008, 11:02 AM
it's not exactly legal... if you read the article properly it never said it was legal. it just said they overturned the ban. there is a difference. but it's cool. i am glad for the gays. this makes me happy that we are taking steps forward.

marooko
05-16-2008, 11:03 AM
My parallel was made in reference to the way the "laws" have been and will be dealt with, not the content.

As far as the content though - what they do have in common is that they both deal with topics that are considered questionable lifestyles, thus they face considerable persecution from the mainstream. When the "mainstream" doesn't like something, regardless of how the masses vote, they will find a way to circumvent the legalities.

as with the louder not so main stream. hence this ruling.

jackstraw94086
05-16-2008, 11:08 AM
My parallel was made in reference to the way the "laws" have been and will be dealt with, not the content.

As far as the content though - what they do have in common is that they both deal with topics that are considered questionable lifestyles, thus they face considerable persecution from the mainstream. When the "mainstream" doesn't like something, regardless of how the masses vote, they will find a way to circumvent the legalities.

Your utopian stonertocracy doesn't analogize with two men enjoying the legal rights and validation that a man and woman are afforded.

It's not even close. Drugs are and all or none issue. It's not like some people can get away with selling and taking drugs but a subset of the population can't. Everyone, for the most part, is treated equally under the drug laws. Telling a gay couple that they can't do what everyone else can is a different issue. To mix weed into that is offensive.

TomAz
05-16-2008, 11:22 AM
LET'S BLAME THE ILLEGALS

twoheadedboy
05-16-2008, 11:25 AM
we should not call illegal immigrants... illegal aliens.
it is insulting to our far out there in the universe and/or galaxy martian friends/extreterrestrials. they would not appreciate us using "aliens" to describe meer humans.

KooKoo Banana Funtime
05-16-2008, 11:27 AM
i just married a kumquat

<b> THANKS CALIFORNIA !!!! HEARTS !!! </b>

anti-square
05-16-2008, 11:28 AM
gross.

Young blood
05-16-2008, 11:29 AM
i just married a kumquat

<b> THANKS CALIFORNIA !!!! HEARTS !!! </b>

haha

twoheadedboy
05-16-2008, 11:29 AM
hahah kumquat...
it's like cum and squat had a little baby and named it kumquat

KooKoo Banana Funtime
05-16-2008, 11:30 AM
don't force yer standards on me square

Young blood
05-16-2008, 11:31 AM
1 day Im going to get to slap you bug.

chairmenmeow47
05-16-2008, 11:39 AM
hahah kumquat...
it's like cum and squat had a little baby and named it kumquat

oh if only i knew the HTML to project the image in my head into this thread...

KooKoo Banana Funtime
05-16-2008, 11:42 AM
you should see what yer doing in my head right now


purrrrrr

MissingPerson
05-16-2008, 11:50 AM
The hypocrisy goes both ways. Gays should not be averse to the language.
Civil union is not a dirty word. This is a legal issue. Anyone claiming a legal difference between a civil union that and "marriage" is a hypocrite if they don't also consider ever secular wedding, including heterosexuals, less worthy of legal rights. By that logic, any man and woman wedded by a judge or ship captain does not deserve the same rights as a a couple wedded by a priest. Even religious people wouldn't dare go that far. Get over it. Get the same rights as "married" couples and stop giving a fuck what it's called.

No, hang on, this is more complicated than you make it sound. The problem isn't the term "civil union" in itself - it's the way that it's used. The right to marry is primarily about declaring your spouse in the eyes of society, rather than the law. The gay community does want all the legal etc. benefits of marriage, and a civil union offers that. But they also, quite reasonably, believe that if they accept civil unions as a compromise then they're settling.

When a man and a woman have a civil ceremony, secular wedding whatever, they can assume that there's a general understanding that they're married. This isn't quite so for a gay couple. To them, the whole gay civil union thing is just a token that "mainstream" society is throwing them keep them quiet - it's clear that mainstream society doesn't consider it "as good as" a full on bells-and-whistles marriage - or else they'd have let them have the damn thing - so why should they?

Marriage rights are mainly about the actual marriage, yeah, but underneath that, they represent a threshold of acceptance. Legalising gay marriage - marriage, with that word - means "Yeah, we're cool with it folks". Not doing so, offering a civil ceremony, is loaded with the implication that they're free to have their little pretend weddings among themselves so long as they keep them out of the real world. Regardless of what the actual legal status is, legalising gay marriage is also about changing general attitudes until the point comes when it's not an issue anymore.

That's what it's really about - it's a signal that their relationships are finally considered as valid. And maybe that's too optimistic, but you can't blame them for wanting it.

jackstraw94086
05-16-2008, 12:18 PM
No, hang on, this is more complicated than you make it sound. The problem isn't the term "civil union" in itself - it's the way that it's used. The right to marry is primarily about declaring your spouse in the eyes of society, rather than the law. The gay community does want all the legal etc. benefits of marriage, and a civil union offers that. But they also, quite reasonably, believe that if they accept civil unions as a compromise then they're settling.

When a man and a woman have a civil ceremony, secular wedding whatever, they can assume that there's a general understanding that they're married. This isn't quite so for a gay couple. To them, the whole gay civil union thing is just a token that "mainstream" society is throwing them keep them quiet - it's clear that mainstream society doesn't consider it "as good as" a full on bells-and-whistles marriage - or else they'd have let them have the damn thing - so why should they?

Marriage rights are mainly about the actual marriage, yeah, but underneath that, they represent a threshold of acceptance. Legalising gay marriage - marriage, with that word - means "Yeah, we're cool with it folks". Not doing so, offering a civil ceremony, is loaded with the implication that they're free to have their little pretend weddings among themselves so long as they keep them out of the real world. Regardless of what the actual legal status is, legalising gay marriage is also about changing general attitudes until the point comes when it's not an issue anymore.

That's what it's really about - it's a signal that their relationships are finally considered as valid. And maybe that's too optimistic, but you can't blame them for wanting it.


My point is that the semantics are just that. Let's be real. Fighting over the word and delaying your legal rights is not sensible. The law must protect their rights the same as everyone else's. Once that's done, then they can wrangle over the word itself.

And let's be realer. The word itself doesn't mean anything to most people. My point about secular heterosexual marriages is that everyone takes for granted that the marriage is real. Those sensible people would consider a gay marriage just as real. The people who are fighting against gay marriage will never fully acknowledge gay unions regardless of what you call it, even if gay advocates DO get the word marriage in the books. It's time to say fuck those guys and get what really matters. Fighting over semantics only plays into their hands.

MissingPerson
05-16-2008, 12:28 PM
I see what you're saying, and I kind of agree, but I can see why they're so hellbent on going all-or-nothing too. If they settle for civil union, then in the eyes of some they're conceding that it's only a legal issue - which it's not.

I also half-suspect it's a tactical thing. I think the figures in the gay rights movement are wary that they could lose a lot of the angry momentum if they accept civil unions as an interim solution. Once the aims are less tangible and clearly defined, those last few yards are tough ground to cover.

denies the day
05-16-2008, 03:18 PM
The definition of "civil union" changes from state to state as well, whereas the term "marriage" has a universally accepted value. Both Jack and Missing make good points but at the end of the day, giving it a different name like civil union automatically makes it unequal. Baby steps for sure, but at the cost of relegating oneself to an accepted lower class? Dunno about that.

Different states may also find it much easier to refuse recognition of the union if it isn't called "marriage".

I think the most important benefit gay marriage has is that it automatically makes them a "family" in the eyes of the medical and legal community. If one partner has a medical crisis, the spouse can automatically speak on their behalf, make decisions and more importantly, actually be allowed in the same room with the other. Civil unions are a vague area where these things may not necessarily be consistent, i.e. the couple may still have to draw up legal documents anyway that are inherent in straight marriages.

Any two people can already name themselves as each other's power-of-attorney, death beneficiary, co-signer, etc etc, but it takes a lot of legal legwork to have it on par with the benefits instantly given with a marriage certificate.

gaypalmsprings
05-16-2008, 03:25 PM
I think marriage is a straight, Biblically based institution. Why do I as a gay person want to emulate straight Bible thumpers? Gays that want to marry are straight wanna-be's. I'm staying single.

denies the day
05-16-2008, 03:41 PM
GPS, you so crazy.

twoheadedboy
05-16-2008, 03:52 PM
is your avatar kitty porn?

MissingPerson
05-16-2008, 03:56 PM
I think marriage is a straight, Biblically based institution. Why do I as a gay person want to emulate straight Bible thumpers? Gays that want to marry are straight wanna-be's. I'm staying single.


Oh no, you don't get off that easily.

Let all the orientations and persuasions know this:

All ye shall be blighted as equally; by stupid fucking wedding speeches about lame anecdotes that won't ever go anywhere, by hatefully smug-looking couples doing that stupid face at each other, by nauseating cutesy vows that go on and on and on until you start imagining what everybody would look like if they had fungus for limbs, and by the indescribable horror of seeing all your drunk, ugly relatives and realising that, older and fatter, you'll look like them some day.

And none shall be spared.

chairmenmeow47
05-16-2008, 04:21 PM
i think MissingPerson is my own personal BMOTW, you're on a roll :)

jackstraw94086
05-16-2008, 05:41 PM
I think marriage is a straight, Biblically based institution. Why do I as a gay person want to emulate straight Bible thumpers? Gays that want to marry are straight wanna-be's. I'm staying single.

sure that's a popular sentiment. You have every right to bang away and keep reaching for that brass(brown) ring.

I also know a few personally that are secretly rooting against the marriage thing for fear that they'll have to come up with some other excuse why they don't want to commit. sucks for you. you guys opened this can of worms. Breeders have to suffer so why not you guys too. Fair is fair. Gays have had it easy for too long and we're sick of it.

But there's folks like my former roommate who really wants to marry her girlfriend someday. She's jumping through hoops to get her irish citizenship just in case it's never possible here. That's a huge fucking hassle.


and btw I don't think the concept of marriage is necessarily biblical. Religion is a virus that has taken advantage of the human species' capacity for unquestioned belief, but it's coincidence. Humans generally mate for life for the best chance of procreating successfully. It's going to take a long fucking time for humanity to wash its hands of that.

Benis23
05-16-2008, 05:52 PM
Yeah, I nearly cried myself, and I'm only half gay.

Half gay? Is that coming from your maternal or paternal side? Gayness is passed down on the moher's side - right?

gaypalmsprings
05-16-2008, 05:53 PM
Half gay? Is that coming from your maternal or paternal side? Gayness is passed down on the moher's side - right?

You thinking with your benis?

Benis23
05-16-2008, 05:56 PM
I'd rather have a penis in my asshole than see the sanctity of marriage get obliterated like this.

PassiveTheory
05-16-2008, 06:02 PM
I'd rather have a penis in my asshole than see the sanctity of marriage get obliterated like this.

LOL @ the "sanctity" of marriage.

Seriously, if it's so "sacred" then explain the current divorce rate.

Everybody, gay or straight, black or white, should have the right to be married and miserable.

Benis23
05-16-2008, 06:07 PM
My sarcasm didn't come across very well. It's about time gay people can get married.

humanoid
05-16-2008, 07:20 PM
I say ban gay marriage.....if we can also ban religion

Pixiessp
05-16-2008, 07:39 PM
gays should have the right to make the same stupid decision to marry as straight people do.

humanoid
05-16-2008, 07:43 PM
absolutely correct

MissingPerson
05-16-2008, 07:45 PM
But there's folks like my former roommate who really wants to marry her girlfriend someday. She's jumping through hoops to get her irish citizenship just in case it's never possible here. That's a huge fucking hassle.


Ireland is less gay-friendly than most of the states...? From a legal standpoint anyway.

PassiveTheory
05-16-2008, 07:47 PM
My sarcasm didn't come across very well. It's about time gay people can get married.

Sorry, my bad. Can we be friends now?

Hannahrain
05-16-2008, 07:50 PM
Someone make a gay marriage joke about Passive and Benis.

thelastgreatman
05-16-2008, 07:52 PM
Someone make a gay marriage joke about Passive and Benis.

Those two are just lucky the law applies to dykes as well as fags--they are both.

MissingPerson
05-16-2008, 08:05 PM
Yeah, I went and looked up the laws applying to gays in Ireland.



IIV. In the context of same-sex couples, The REPUBLIC OF IRELAND acknowledges these Citizens as free and equal, and with the provision (Article 34534 (b)) declares that The REPUBLIC OF IRELAND (Henceforth referred to as (THE STATE) is Cool With It. This status is qualified with the declaration that public displays of affection mildly freak THE STATE out, so if you could sort of be discreet about it, that would rock. THE STATE declares homosexuals subject to the full protection of the law. However, THE STATE's parents are staying and they're old-fashioned, and homophobic, so if you could be kind of... straight acting or whatever, THE STATE of Ireland will be really grateful. THE STATE is totally really sorry and all, and like we said, THE STATE is totally Cool With It and has like, shitloads of gay friends. It's totally just THE STATE's parents.

The REPUBLIC OF IRELAND hereby formally declares that their parents aren't homophobic really or anything, that's just the way their generation thinks. It's not their fault though, they're just ignorant. You know how it is.

jackstraw94086
05-16-2008, 08:26 PM
Ireland is less gay-friendly than most of the states...? From a legal standpoint anyway.

I haven't done the research but I'm assuming she has. Her family's from there and she claims getting her citizenship there is the best chance she's got of marrying her girlfriend if it becomes apparent that she cannot here. I'm not entirely positive that it's Ireland itself she wishes to marry in, but perhaps another commonwealth or EU option that it would enable.

don't know.

Benis23
05-16-2008, 08:49 PM
Sorry, my bad. Can we be friends now?

Why stop at friends? Let's get married.


Those two are just lucky the law applies to dykes as well as fags--they are both.

Did you just call me bisexual? That's weak, LGM - even for you.

Pixiessp
05-16-2008, 08:52 PM
bi phobia? big in the 90's.

TomAz
05-16-2008, 09:40 PM
there is no roman numeral "IIV".

Encaitare
05-16-2008, 09:59 PM
half gay?

Bisexual, half-gay, all the same to me.

sbessiso
05-17-2008, 12:24 AM
this news makes me so happy and provides even more of a reason to move to Cali

thelastgreatman
05-17-2008, 12:24 AM
Did you just call me bisexual? That's weak, LGM - even for you.

No, I said that you have girls parts.

jackstraw94086
05-17-2008, 02:10 AM
there is no roman numeral "IIV".

fascist.

MissingPerson
05-17-2008, 03:56 AM
there is no roman numeral "IIV".

There is in Ireland. We made it.

gaypalmsprings
05-17-2008, 06:26 AM
see the sanctity of marriage get obliterated

http://www.roxibabe.com/pardon_my_planet.gif