:cool:
QuoteMaine legalizes same-sex marriage
State lawmakers passed bill Wednesday, and governor signed it
(CNN) -- Same-sex marriage became legal in Maine on Wednesday as Gov. John Baldacci signed a bill less than an hour after the state legislature approved it.
Maine Gov. John Baldacci signed a bill Wednesday legalizing same-sex marriage.
"I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage," said Baldacci, a Democrat.
But he raised the possibility that the residents of the state would overturn the law, saying, "Just as the Maine Constitution demands that all people are treated equally under the law, it also guarantees that the ultimate political power in the State belongs to the people."
Three other states -- Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa -- allow same-sex marriages. Vermont has passed a law making gay and lesbian marriages legal that takes effect in September. New Hampshire lawmakers are close to passing a similar bill.
On Tuesday, the Washington City Council voted to recognize same-sex marriages from states that allow those unions. Mayor Adrian Fenty has indicated that he will sign the measure. It will become law if Congress fails to overturn the measure during a 30-day review period.
A slim majority of Americans are against legal recognition for same-sex marriage, CNN polling found last month.
Fifty-four percent of adults questioned in an April 23-26 nationwide CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll said that marriages between gay or lesbian couples should not be recognized as valid, while 44 percent said they should be considered legal.
The survey's sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.
now those 4 gay guys in Maine can get married.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 06, 2009, 12:21:19 PM
now those 4 gay guys in Maine can get married.
Prolly lots of bears (lumberjacks) up there. :perv:
:(
:yeah:
Marty should move to Bangor.
which they may have to rename to Bangim?
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 06, 2009, 12:34:59 PM
which they may have to rename to Bangim?
But only inside wedlock. I will not have the sanctity of gay marriage insulted on this board.
Lessee.
So that means Maine, NH, MA have same-sex marriage. California, Washington, NJ have civil unions.
So we are now approaching what, a third of the country's population?
Quote from: Faeelin on May 06, 2009, 12:41:28 PM
So that means Maine, NH, MA have same-sex marriage. California, Washington, NJ have civil unions.
So we are now approaching what, a third of the country's population?
Maine = 1,316,456 (2008 Census estimate)
New Hampshire = 1,315,809
Massachusetts = 6,497,967
California = 36,756,666
Washington = 6,549,224
New Jersey = 8,682,661
Total = 61,118,783
USA = 304,059,724
So no. Unless you count 1/5 as "approaching 1/3."
Quote from: ulmont on May 06, 2009, 12:49:19 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 06, 2009, 12:41:28 PM
So that means Maine, NH, MA have same-sex marriage. California, Washington, NJ have civil unions.
So we are now approaching what, a third of the country's population?
Maine = 1,316,456 (2008 Census estimate)
New Hampshire = 1,315,809
Massachusetts = 6,497,967
California = 36,756,666
Washington = 6,549,224
New Jersey = 8,682,661
Total = 61,118,783
USA = 304,059,724
So no. Unless you count 1/5 as "approaching 1/3."
Maybe if you think that California has 50 million illegals?
I'll raise a tumbler full of Allen's Coffee Brandy and milk to this news. :Canuck:
John Baldacci is the greatest person from Maine since Joshua Chamberlain. Hell he is even greater than Wilt Chamberlain.
Quote from: ulmont on May 06, 2009, 12:49:19 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 06, 2009, 12:41:28 PM
So that means Maine, NH, MA have same-sex marriage. California, Washington, NJ have civil unions.
So we are now approaching what, a third of the country's population?
Maine = 1,316,456 (2008 Census estimate)
New Hampshire = 1,315,809
Massachusetts = 6,497,967
California = 36,756,666
Washington = 6,549,224
New Jersey = 8,682,661
Total = 61,118,783
USA = 304,059,724
So no. Unless you count 1/5 as "approaching 1/3."
Toss in Oregon, the population of Washignton DC, and New York State, which recognizes out of state marriages.
Then eat shit and die. :hug:
Who is left in New England? Rhode Island?
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the other day that DC's city council voted to legalize gay marriage as well. The only dissenting vote came from Marion Barry. :lol:
Congress still needs to approve that, though (technically the District of Columbia is governed by Congress).
Quote from: Caliga on May 06, 2009, 01:24:53 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the other day that DC's city council voted to legalize gay marriage as well. The only dissenting vote came from Marion Barry. :lol:
Congress still needs to approve that, though (technically the District of Columbia is governed by Congress).
Note, though, he is warning of a civil war if this goes forward.
Hrmm. I really thought there was a Confederate smiley.
Marion Barry is? :lmfao:
Quote from: Caliga on May 06, 2009, 01:41:29 PM
Marion Barry is? :lmfao:
QuoteBarry Warns of "Civil War" Over Gay Marriage
D.C. Council member Marion Barry (D-Ward 8), the only council member to vote against the bill today to legalize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, predicted today there could be a "civil war" in the District if the Council decides to take up a broader gay marriage bill later this year.
"All hell is going to break lose," Barry said while speaking to reporters. "We may have a civil war. The black community is just adamant against this."
Barry Warns of "Civil War" Over Gay Marriage
D.C. Council member Marion Barry (D-Ward 8), the only council member to vote against the bill today to legalize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, predicted today there could be a "civil war" in the District if the Council decides to take up a broader gay marriage bill later this year.
"All hell is going to break lose," Barry said while speaking to reporters. "We may have a civil war. The black community is just adamant against this."
Barry made his remarks a few hours after a group of same-sex marriage opponents, led by black ministers, caused uproar in the Wilson Building after the Council voted 12 to 1 to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. They caused such a ruckus that security guards and police had to clear the hallway. The protesters shouted that council members who voted for the bill will face retribution at the polls.
Although he has been a longtime supporter of gay rights, Barry said he voted against the bill to satisfy his constituents in Southeast Washington.
"What you've got to understand is 98 percent of my constituents are black and we don't have but a handful of openly gay residents," Barry said. "Secondly, at least 70 percent of those who express themselves to me about this are opposed to anything dealing with this issue. The ministers think it is a sin, and I have to be sensitive to that."
But Barry said he disagrees with the ministers' antics today at the Wilson Building, saying the chaos "sets the movement back."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2009/05/barry_warns_of_civil_war_over.html
Whew, glad to know he hasn't stopped smoking crack. :)
Quote from: Caliga on May 06, 2009, 01:51:10 PM
Whew, glad to know he hasn't stopped smoking crack. :)
It gets even better. He claimed he didn't know what he was voting on, then backtracked and said he walked out of the room during the vote.
This is bad news, due to the enmity that gay people bear me. I would prefer that they have no rights.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 06, 2009, 01:01:43 PM
Toss in Oregon, the population of Washignton DC, and New York State, which recognizes out of state marriages.
Then eat shit and die. :hug:
Yeah if one adds in New York State and DC which are entertaining the idea of issuing gay marriages, that gets you to well over a quarter of America.
Btw, New England is so gay!
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 02:33:21 PM
This is bad news, due to the enmity that gay people bear me. I would prefer that they have no rights.
Other than Marty (not an American), what gay people have a problem with you?
Good for Maine.
Nice to see.
Apparently the feds may start recognize gay marriages: http://www.advocate.com/print_article_ektid78955.asp
Caliga, why do you keep stealing Martinus thunder/wind?
Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2009, 02:53:15 PM
Nice to see.
Apparently the feds may start recognize gay marriages: http://www.advocate.com/print_article_ektid78955.asp
Eh. It's a nice idea, and should happen. But the current White House is reluctant to touch anything dealing with gay rights.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 06, 2009, 01:01:43 PM
Toss in Oregon, the population of Washignton DC, and New York State, which recognizes out of state marriages.
Maine = 1,316,456 (2008 Census estimate)
New Hampshire = 1,315,809
Massachusetts = 6,497,967
California = 36,756,666
Washington = 6,549,224
New Jersey = 8,682,661
Oregon = 3,790,060
Washington DC = 591,833
New York = 19,490,297
Total = 84,990,973
USA = 304,059,724
Up to 28% now. Only 16,362,268 more people needed to hit 1/3.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 06, 2009, 01:01:43 PM
Then eat shit and die. :hug:
No thanks. And dude, I just took your states and did math. Adding in DC and NY is very tenuous, I must say; if you can't get married in the state, I don't think it should count.
Quote from: garbon on May 06, 2009, 02:37:51 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 02:33:21 PM
This is bad news, due to the enmity that gay people bear me. I would prefer that they have no rights.
Other than Marty (not an American), what gay people have a problem with you?
Everyone trying to change the system.
Quote from: ulmont on May 06, 2009, 03:24:25 PM
Adding in DC and NY is very tenuous, I must say; if you can't get married in the state, I don't think it should count.
Come back in a year. I think both states will have passed their own marriage laws, although the NY dems may implode first.
Quote from: ulmont on May 06, 2009, 03:24:25 PM
...if you can't get married in the state, I don't think it should count.
Huhwhat? They recognize the marriages, they just don't issue them. Counting them would be tricky because not every couple that would be eligible to travel to have the marriage issued will necessarily do it, but there are definitely those that will. Not counting them would be more spin than counting them.
Quote from: ulmont on May 06, 2009, 03:24:25 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 06, 2009, 01:01:43 PM
Toss in Oregon, the population of Washignton DC, and New York State, which recognizes out of state marriages.
Maine = 1,316,456 (2008 Census estimate)
New Hampshire = 1,315,809
Massachusetts = 6,497,967
California = 36,756,666
Washington = 6,549,224
New Jersey = 8,682,661
Oregon = 3,790,060
Washington DC = 591,833
New York = 19,490,297
Total = 84,990,973
USA = 304,059,724
Up to 28% now. Only 16,362,268 more people needed to hit 1/3.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 06, 2009, 01:01:43 PM
Then eat shit and die. :hug:
No thanks. And dude, I just took your states and did math. Adding in DC and NY is very tenuous, I must say; if you can't get married in the state, I don't think it should count.
+ 3.5 million for Connecticut. :contract:
Quote from: Faeelin on May 06, 2009, 03:17:01 PMEh. It's a nice idea, and should happen. But the current White House is reluctant to touch anything dealing with gay rights.
My understanding is that Obama isn't up to expending political capital on making it happen, but if House and Senate Democrats put something together would the White House oppose it? I doubt it.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 06, 2009, 03:55:03 PM
Huhwhat? They recognize the marriages, they just don't issue them.
Just not issuing the marriages is a big deal. If a state won't issue a marriage license (or a civil union license, or whatnot) to a same-sex couple, it doesn't have same-sex marriage (or civil unions).
I mean, applying it to the oft-analogized miscegenation laws, you wouldn't have said in the 1960s that a state that recognized a white-black marriage from out of state, but wouldn't issue a marriage license to a white-black couple, really allowed interracial marriages?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 06, 2009, 03:59:53 PM
+ 3.5 million for Connecticut. :contract:
Doesn't count until Faelin puts it on his list. :P
Quote from: Faeelin on May 06, 2009, 03:52:00 PM
Come back in a year. I think both states will have passed their own marriage laws, although the NY dems may implode first.
Very probably.
Quote from: ulmont on May 06, 2009, 04:04:01 PM
Just not issuing the marriages is a big deal. If a state won't issue a marriage license (or a civil union license, or whatnot) to a same-sex couple, it doesn't have same-sex marriage (or civil unions).
I mean, applying it to the oft-analogized miscegenation laws, you wouldn't have said in the 1960s that a state that recognized a white-black marriage from out of state, but wouldn't issue a marriage license to a white-black couple, really allowed interracial marriages?
Actually, I probably would. The marriages are almost a secondary issue, and spousal rights are the primary. If both partners are entitled to spousal rights in a state, then I would put it down as "allowed," yes.
My tests:
1) Does the state have a mechanism by which the marriage license can be obtained?
2) Does the state recognize spousal rights for partners in a same-sex marriage?
Forcing a couple to travel out of state to obtain the marriage is just further red tape if the state intends to recognize the marriage anyway, so it counts.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2009, 03:15:07 PM
Caliga, why do you keep stealing Martinus thunder/wind?
Because he's gonna ditch Prin and finally come out duh :rolleyes:
Quote from: katmai on May 06, 2009, 04:12:33 PM
Because he's gonna ditch Prin and finally come out duh :rolleyes:
Cal breaking Marti's wind? That's bizarre, even for Languish (except for Syt). :P
Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2009, 04:04:00 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 06, 2009, 03:17:01 PMEh. It's a nice idea, and should happen. But the current White House is reluctant to touch anything dealing with gay rights.
My understanding is that Obama isn't up to expending political capital on making it happen, but if House and Senate Democrats put something together would the White House oppose it? I doubt it.
But why would they be bothered to do that? After all, Congress isn't going to move on something less controversial like DADT either.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 06, 2009, 04:19:54 PMBut why would they be bothered to do that? After all, Congress isn't going to move on something less controversial like DADT either.
I don't know, but that's what the article says they're doing. Or at least considering.
Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2009, 04:24:28 PM
I don't know, but that's what the article says they're doing. Or at least considering.
I get the vibe that DC is not so much keeping away from it as taking time to build up a solid stance. I have a gut feeling that before this ends, the USSC is going to be forced to hear a case on this as a gender equality issue in a form where once one partner is established, the marriage can be denied for the other partner being the "wrong" gender.
Quote from: ulmont on May 06, 2009, 12:49:19 PM
Maine = 1,316,456 (2008 Census estimate)
New Hampshire = 1,315,809
Iowa = 3,002,555
Massachusetts = 6,497,967
California = 36,756,666
Washington = 6,549,224
New Jersey = 8,682,661
Total = 64,121,338
USA = 304,059,724
So no. Unless you count 1/5 as "approaching 1/3."
<_<
Fixed for accuracy. :contract:
Still at only 21% of the population of the nation, but still. Give credit where credit is due.
I wonder what the divorce rate is for gay marriage?
Quote from: ulmont on May 06, 2009, 03:24:25 PM
Maine = 1,316,456 (2008 Census estimate)
New Hampshire = 1,315,809
Massachusetts = 6,497,967
California = 36,756,666
Washington = 6,549,224
New Jersey = 8,682,661
Oregon = 3,790,060
Washington DC = 591,833
New York = 19,490,297
Total = 84,990,973
USA = 304,059,724
Up to 28% now. Only 16,362,268 more people needed to hit 1/3.
:grr:
Iowa! :contract:
Quote from: merithyn on May 06, 2009, 05:44:35 PM
Quote from: ulmont on May 06, 2009, 03:24:25 PM
Maine = 1,316,456 (2008 Census estimate)
New Hampshire = 1,315,809
Massachusetts = 6,497,967
California = 36,756,666
Washington = 6,549,224
New Jersey = 8,682,661
Oregon = 3,790,060
Washington DC = 591,833
New York = 19,490,297
Total = 84,990,973
USA = 304,059,724
Up to 28% now. Only 16,362,268 more people needed to hit 1/3.
:grr:
Iowa! :contract:
The only good thing to come out of Iowa is the name of a dreadnought battleship.
Quote from: Strix on May 06, 2009, 05:42:02 PM
I wonder what the divorce rate is for gay marriage?
For civil unions, so far it's actually quite surprising. Lesbians are far more likely to get divorced than gay men, though they also unionise earlier in both relationship and age terms.
Edit: And I wasn't clear. From what I remember gay men are slightly less likely than straight couples to divorce, lesbians slightly moreso.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 06, 2009, 05:54:38 PM
For civil unions, so far it's actually quite surprising. Lesbians are far more likely to get divorced than gay men, though they also unionise earlier in both relationship and age terms.
Edit: And I wasn't clear. From what I remember gay men are slightly less likely than straight couples to divorce, lesbians slightly moreso.
For clarification, I was looking up the same info- Sweden's the only country that's got semi-reliable info and they claim the separation rate of lesbians is slightly raised.
So far, the projections are toward slightly raised, due to a higher percentage of dual-income, childless marriages.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 06, 2009, 06:02:12 PM
For clarification, I was looking up the same info- Sweden's the only country that's got semi-reliable info and they claim the separation rate of lesbians is slightly raised.
It's worth remembering that we won't have a full picture because over 50% of divorces take place after 13 year and civil unions are only about 20 years old (I believe). We need a generation or so before we'll know.
Incidentally, there's talk of the Republicans raising the issue in Congress, to try to oppose the DC bill.
Good idea for them or not?
Quote from: merithyn on May 06, 2009, 05:44:35 PM
Iowa! :contract:
Not on Faelin's list, so it doesn't count :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 06, 2009, 05:54:38 PM
For civil unions, so far it's actually quite surprising. Lesbians are far more likely to get divorced than gay men, though they also unionise earlier in both relationship and age terms.
Actually, I don't find that surprising at all.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 06, 2009, 06:19:05 PM
Incidentally, there's talk of the Republicans raising the issue in Congress, to try to oppose the DC bill.
Good idea for them or not?
I'd say no. They'll get crucified on the gay marriage issue than for good measure they'll get crucified on the DC not having representation issue. It's a lose-lose.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 06, 2009, 06:18:17 PM
It's worth remembering that we won't have a full picture because over 50% of divorces take place after 13 year and civil unions are only about 20 years old (I believe). We need a generation or so before we'll know.
10 years. They're still operating largely on projections as well.
Quote from: Phillip V on May 06, 2009, 01:10:07 PM
Who is left in New England? Rhode Island?
Quohahog RI has it tho, I saw it on TV.
Meanwhile, other news from DC.
QuoteWASHINGTON — President Obama was noticeably silent last month when the Iowa Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage.
But now Mr. Obama — who has said he opposes same-sex marriage as a Christian but describes himself as a "fierce advocate of equality" for gay men and lesbians — is under pressure to engage on a variety of gay issues that are coming to the fore amid a dizzying pace of social, political, legal and legislative change.
Two of Mr. Obama's potential Supreme Court nominees are openly gay; some advocates, irked that there are no gay men or lesbians in his cabinet, are mounting a campaign to influence his choice to replace Justice David H. Souter, who is retiring. Same-sex marriage is advancing in states — the latest to allow it is Maine — and a new flare-up in the District of Columbia could ultimately put the controversy in the lap of the president.
Mr. Obama's new global health initiative has infuriated activists who say he is not financing AIDS programs generously enough. And while the president has urged Congress to pass a hate crimes bill, a high priority for gay groups, he has delayed action on one of his key campaign promises, repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" rule.
Social issues like same-sex marriage bring together deeply held principles and flashpoint politics, and many gay activists, aware that Mr. Obama is also dealing with enormous challenges at home and overseas, have counseled patience.
But some are unsettled by what they see as the president's cautious approach. Many are still seething over his choice of the Rev. Rick Warren, the evangelical pastor who opposes same-sex marriage, to deliver the invocation at his inaugural, and remain suspicious of Mr. Obama's commitment to their cause.
In the words of David Mixner, a writer, gay activists are beginning to wonder, "How much longer do we give him the benefit of the doubt?" Last weekend, Richard Socarides, who advised President Bill Clinton on gay issues, published an opinion piece in The Washington Post headlined, "Where's our fierce advocate?"
The White House, aware of the discontent, invited leaders of some prominent gay rights organizations to meet Monday with top officials, including Jim Messina, Mr. Obama's deputy chief of staff, to plot legislative strategy on the hate crimes bill as well as "don't ask, don't tell." Among those attending was Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, who said afterward that while the gay rights agenda might not be "unfolding exactly as we thought," he was pleased.
"They have a vision," Mr. Solmonese said. "They have a plan."
While Mr. Obama has said he is "open to the possibility" that his views on same-sex marriage are misguided, he has offered no signal that he intends to change his position. And as he confronts that and other issues important to gay rights advocates, he faces an array of pressures and risks.
Anything substantive he might say on same-sex marriage — after the Iowa ruling, the White House put out a statement saying the president "respects the decision" — would be endlessly parsed. If Mr. Obama were to embrace same-sex marriage, he would be seen as reversing a campaign position and alienating some moderate and religious voters he has courted.
And if he appoints a gay person to the Supreme Court, he would be viewed by social conservatives — including many black ministers, another of his core constituency groups — as putting a vote for same-sex marriage on the highest court in the land. Two gay women, Kathleen M. Sullivan and Pamela S. Karlan, both of Stanford Law School, have been suggested as potential nominees.
"That would be tantamount to opening the gate for the other side," said Bishop Harry J. Jackson Jr. of the Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md., who is organizing protests in Washington, where the City Council passed an ordinance this week recognizing same-sex marriages in other states. "If he meant what he said about marriage then I think he has got to stand up and be a president who acts on his beliefs."
Some say change is inevitable, not only for Mr. Obama but also for other Democratic politicians who have embraced civil unions but rejected same-sex marriage. Now that the Iowa ruling has pushed the battle into the nation's heartland, the issue will inevitably come up during the 2010 midterm elections and the 2012 presidential campaign.
"We've elected probably the most pro-gay president in history; he's very good on the issues but he is not good on gay marriage," said Steven Elmendorf, a gay Democratic lobbyist. "From the gay community's perspective, he and a lot of other elected officials are wrong on this. My view is that over time, they're going to realize they're wrong and they're going to change."
Mr. Obama has chosen a number of openly gay people for prominent jobs, including Fred P. Hochberg as chairman of the Export-Import Bank and John Berry to run the Office of Personnel Management. And he is the first president to set aside tickets for gay families to attend the White House Easter Egg Roll.
But on legislation, allies of Mr. Obama's are not surprised that he is charting a careful course. In addition to calling for the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military, Mr. Obama supports a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that said states need not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Opponents of same-sex marriage say that is an inconsistency.
Tobias Wolff, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania who was Mr. Obama's top campaign adviser on gay rights, said the president needed time to build political consensus.
"I think he has a genuine sense," Mr. Wolff said, "that in order to move these issues forward you need broader buy-in than you are going to get if you poke a stick in too many people's eyes."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/us/politics/07obama.html?_r=5&src=twt&twt=nytimes
Quote from: merithyn on May 06, 2009, 05:44:35 PM
:grr:
Iowa! :contract:
Iowa brought us Obama. Fuck Iowa. :angry:
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 03:49:12 PM
Everyone trying to change the system.
I don't think you factor into their thoughts at all. In fact, if I had to be glad about anyone squirming over gay marriage, it'd be derspeiss. :)
Quote from: garbon on May 06, 2009, 11:39:37 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 03:49:12 PM
Everyone trying to change the system.
I don't think you factor into their thoughts at all. In fact, if I had to be glad about anyone squirming over gay marriage, it'd be derspeiss. :)
Doesn't matter. When you attack the way of things and start a fuss, you're attacking me.
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 07:32:50 AM
Doesn't matter. When you attack the way of things and start a fuss, you're attacking me.
Negative. You might feel attacked but in reality, it has nothing to do with you. At most things will change superficially for you.
Quote from: garbon on May 06, 2009, 11:39:37 PM
I don't think you factor into their thoughts at all. In fact, if I had to be glad about anyone squirming over gay marriage, it'd be derspeiss. :)
Who's squirming? Marriage in Ohio has been protected via a constitutional amendment :P
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2009, 10:50:42 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 06, 2009, 11:39:37 PM
I don't think you factor into their thoughts at all. In fact, if I had to be glad about anyone squirming over gay marriage, it'd be derspeiss. :)
Who's squirming? Marriage in Ohio has been protected via a constitutional amendment :P
:mad:
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2009, 10:50:42 AM
Who's squirming? Marriage in Ohio has been protected via a constitutional amendment :P
For now.
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2009, 10:50:42 AM
Who's squirming? Marriage in Ohio has been protected via a constitutional amendment :P
Constitutional amendments can be overturned. :menace:
Good thing to or drinking would still be banned.
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2009, 11:13:33 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2009, 10:50:42 AM
Who's squirming? Marriage in Ohio has been protected via a constitutional amendment :P
Constitutional amendments can be overturned. :menace:
Good thing to or drinking would still be banned.
STAY OUT OF BUCKEYE AFFAIRS FOREIGNER!
I'm practicing my state rights foaming at the mouth.
Quote from: Caliga on May 06, 2009, 06:55:41 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 06, 2009, 05:54:38 PM
For civil unions, so far it's actually quite surprising. Lesbians are far more likely to get divorced than gay men, though they also unionise earlier in both relationship and age terms.
Actually, I don't find that surprising at all.
The chances of a marriage failing increase with the amount of women in them? Because that strikes me as a very sexist position to take Cal :angry:
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2009, 02:43:04 PM
The chances of a marriage failing increase with the amount of women in them?
POTM.
Isn't it that lesbians rush in? It takes a lot of effort and purpose to settle down as a gay man, whereas lesbians are quick to nest.
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2009, 02:43:04 PM
The chances of a marriage failing increase with the amount of women in them? Because that strikes me as a very sexist position to take Cal :angry:
"Amount" of women? Women are numbered. They don't have an "amount." Should be "number of women" and then the statement becomes accurate.
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2009, 02:43:04 PMBecause that strikes me as a very sexist position
Interestingly it's also a correct one. :smarty:
Quote from: Caliga on May 07, 2009, 07:42:18 PM
Interestingly it's also a correct one. :smarty:
With two men, it's likely that there will never be a marriage to begin with. :D
Quote from: garbon on May 07, 2009, 07:45:17 PMWith two men, it's likely that there will never be a marriage to begin with. :D
In Mass., about half of the married homosexual couples I knew were gay, and half lesbian. AFAIK all of them are still together.
Quote from: Caliga on May 07, 2009, 07:46:56 PM
In Mass., about half of the married homosexual couples I knew were gay, and half lesbian. AFAIK all of them are still together.
Great?
Quote from: garbon on May 07, 2009, 10:25:45 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 07:32:50 AM
Doesn't matter. When you attack the way of things and start a fuss, you're attacking me.
Negative. You might feel attacked but in reality, it has nothing to do with you. At most things will change superficially for you.
It has everything to do with me. People try and change things because of their lack of respect for me.
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 07:59:04 PM
It has everything to do with me. People try and change things because of their lack of respect for me.
Most people don't know you exist...which I suppose you could construe as lack of respect for you, but that seems foolhardy.
Quote from: garbon on May 07, 2009, 08:01:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 07:59:04 PM
It has everything to do with me. People try and change things because of their lack of respect for me.
Most people don't know you exist...which I suppose you could construe as lack of respect for you, but that seems foolhardy.
Ignorance is no excuse. It's not like the Order of Things is unsatisfactory.
Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2009, 05:33:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2009, 02:43:04 PM
The chances of a marriage failing increase with the amount of women in them? Because that strikes me as a very sexist position to take Cal :angry:
"Amount" of women? Women are numbered. They don't have an "amount." Should be "number of women" and then the statement becomes accurate.
Dunno-- there are some rather manly women out there.
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 08:15:12 PM
Ignorance is no excuse. It's not like the Order of Things is unsatisfactory.
For you. ;)
Besides, when did I say I was trying to excuse them? I was just pointing out why it makes little sense for you to take it as a personal attack.
Quote from: garbon on May 07, 2009, 08:53:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 08:15:12 PM
Ignorance is no excuse. It's not like the Order of Things is unsatisfactory.
For you. ;)
For everyone.
I doubt people dying of AIDS would agree.
Why is faggotry such an importnat topic in this place?
Quote from: Siege on May 08, 2009, 03:22:08 AM
Why is faggotry such an importnat topic in this place?
:blink: