Gay Marriage/Civil Unions in 10 years

[Holmes]

Aw geez, don't fight.

Anyway, ha! Take that Douglas, you class A douche.

It's only the start in DC and they're gonna bring up full marriage soon, but hum. I don't wanna get into that. But personally, I'd love to get married right beside Coburn's office.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I'm not a pro-gay enthusiast. As a matter of fact, I was a little uneasy with the concept of gay marriage.

But thanks to the vile and hateful opposition of troglodytes like you and your childhood heroes (Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly), I now fully support marriage equality by whatever means, legislative or judicial.     

I'm as big of a proponent of gay marriage as there can be, but that's a nonsense reason to support it.

Then again, Rowan's reason -- if it isn't true -- is equally as disappointing.  Amazing how both sides manage to see the other as so much more insidious, but would totally be super sympathetic to the opponents if they weren't such a-holes.

Perhaps my statement was poorly worded. It's not that I don't support marriage equality from every perspective, legal AND moral. I was just a little uneasy because I grew up in a society where marriage was by definition an institution solely associated with heterosexual couples. You can call it the comfort of tradition.

But when I saw during the last years the hate and bigotry exhibited by the religious/Republican nutjobs towards gays, and the cynical way in which they were scapegoated in order for some right-wingers to win elections, I decided that my aesthetic sensibilities matter a lot less than the right of two people who love each other to do what every other heterosexual couple in the world can.

And I must confess, it gives me additional pleasure to watch all those modern day George Wallace and James Eastlands to foam from the mouth while our society moves towards the future, leaving them behind like the flotsam they are.

[Alcon]

Perhaps my statement was poorly worded. It's not that I don't support marriage equality from every perspective, legal AND moral. I was just a little uneasy because I grew up in a society where marriage was by definition an institution solely associated with heterosexual couples. You can call it the comfort of tradition.

I understand.  Sorry for jumping to conclusions.

[Holmes]

Oh, Alcon. I actually have a question... I know the Washington legislature is gonna pass something about this issue, but what is their solution even called? Cause I know saying "everything except the name marriage" is kinda weird to say.

[Alcon]

Oh, Alcon. I actually have a question... I know the Washington legislature is gonna pass something about this issue, but what is their solution even called? Cause I know saying "everything except the name marriage" is kinda weird to say.

"Expanded domestic partnerships," I guess.  It's just expanding the current DP program to have all of the benefits of marriage.  No specific name (other than the bill names) beyond that, and "marriage in name only" etc.

[Holmes]

Bah, just call it marriage and get it over with. What is their holdup, the eastern rural regions?

[Alcon]

Bah, just call it marriage and get it over with. What is their holdup, the eastern rural regions?

Pretty much.  Western Washington would almost certainly vote for gay marriage outright.  The legislature is worried that there's a risk of a reversal.  I think the risk is well under 50%, but they're waiting until they're pretty solid things can hold up at the polls.  Pretty open about it, too.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Damn activist legislators legislating from the legislature.

[Lunar]

Bah, just call it marriage and get it over with. What is their holdup, the eastern rural regions?

Pretty much.  Western Washington would almost certainly vote for gay marriage outright.  The legislature is worried that there's a risk of a reversal.  I think the risk is well under 50%, but they're waiting until they're pretty solid things can hold up at the polls.  Pretty open about it, too.

maybe the West should secede

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Previously gay marriage had only been implemented by "activist judges" -- something the governor has very little to do with

"Activist judges" are a right-wing myth.

Activist rulings are fine, as long as they're right-wing, like Santa Clara county v. Southern Pacific, Plessy v. Fergueson, or Bush v. Gore.

[Meeker]

Bah, just call it marriage and get it over with. What is their holdup, the eastern rural regions?

Pretty much.  Western Washington would almost certainly vote for gay marriage outright.  The legislature is worried that there's a risk of a reversal.  I think the risk is well under 50%, but they're waiting until they're pretty solid things can hold up at the polls.  Pretty open about it, too.

maybe the West should secede

Usually it's the East that wants to.

[Holmes]

maybe the West should secede

Then we'd have two Idaho's!

eta: Wow, on a slightly related note, I went to DU to see what they think of the Iowa and Vermont decisions, and it's all Obama bashing and whinning about how he's throwing gay people under the bus. Do they live in the United States?

[Lunar]

fine, maybe the West should invade and sodomize the people in the East

[Lunar]

LOL watch this ad:
http://www.politico.com/singletitlevideo.html?bcpid=1155201977&bctid=18852128001

the girl looks like she's not going to have a choice indeed


"My freedom will be taken away [by the gays]"

[Torie]

LOL watch this ad:
http://www.politico.com/singletitlevideo.html?bcpid=1155201977&bctid=18852128001

the girl looks like she's not going to have a choice indeed


"My freedom will be taken away [by the gays]"

Well, it says it is sponsored by the "Rainbow Coalition."  I kid you not. 

[Holmes]

I would say "when they know they're losing, they'll resort to lies", but it's not true. They've always lied.

[Holmes]

WAIT Are those the new ads in NJ/NY/RI/IA/etc? I find it stupid that they're targetting states that mostly already wouldn't mind having marriage equality. Then again, money talks.

[Verily]

WAIT Are those the new ads in NJ/NY/RI/IA/etc? I find it stupid that they're targetting states that mostly already wouldn't mind having marriage equality. Then again, money talks.

The ads are kind of strange. I get the impression that they'll just make people around here think the anti-gay marriage movement is crazy (more than they already do), but perhaps not. The ads just seem to play to the sorts of fears you're not going to find in these states (except maybe Iowa). People just aren't that religious.

There are a lot of people (read: Catholics, although Orthodox Christians, too) around here who rarely if ever go to church but who oppose gay marriage, but they don't oppose it because the scary gay people are going to persecute Christians, they oppose it because it's different.

But what do I know? My family's too WASPy for me to be all that tuned in to what the Italians and Hispanics and Russians are thinking. I may be underestimating the strength of the ads.

[Smash255]

That ad is really sad...  Not going to work here.

[Holmes]

I think you're overestimating it. All it seems to do is make the Coburn in 2012's of the country happy and all the rest of the sane people more annoyed with the opposition.

[Brittain33]

How far is $1.5 million going to go in "NY/NJ"?

I suspect they're targeting free media only...

[RI]

Gov. David Paterson plans on introducing gay marriage legislation in New York.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/08/paterson-marriage/

[Lunar]

LOL watch this ad:
http://www.politico.com/singletitlevideo.html?bcpid=1155201977&bctid=18852128001

the girl looks like she's not going to have a choice indeed


"My freedom will be taken away [by the gays]"

this video is a must watch after that:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/Auditioning_against_marriage.html



WOW

[© tweed]

"rainbow coalition"


clever

[MaxQue]

"My freedom will be taken away [by the gays]"

Her liberty of what?