Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

So it seems this turned out to be the sleeper issue of the election, bizarrely enough. The people voted Bush, because they hate fags. (Personally, I'm not so convinced since there were states that went Kerry and yet still voted for a ban on gay marriage.)

Rather than legislating for gay marriage, what I'd prefer to see would be the disappearance of heterosexual marriage as a legal concept. Let people get married in churches or in humanist ceremonies or whatever, but take the law out of what is essentially a cultural, judeo-christian practice. And just stick to the idea of a civil contract of union between two or more people of whatever sex.

― James R., Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:51 (8 years ago) Permalink

This is the way marriage originally was in Massachusetts, which is why the judges here ruled the way they did and why the entire rhetorical spiel about "activist judges changing the law" is a gigantic crock of shit in this state.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:58 (8 years ago) Permalink

It's a red herring that played upon the fears and insecurities of people who aren't smart enough to use the Bible as anything other than what it should be used for -- kindling or a doorstop.

If two guys want to get married --- fuck, if two individuals who happen to love each other --- want to get married, how can that possibly hurt anyone?

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:58 (8 years ago) Permalink

Thanks for the offer but I'm spoken for

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

I feel like I keep repeating the same thing, but it really can't hurt. This isn't an issue about "marriage." It's pure and simple a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE.

― Je4nne ƒury (Jeanne Fury), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:02 (8 years ago) Permalink

Because the Bible specifically states it is a sin and, as a result, being married in a Church is a slap in the face to many people of faith.

I am for gay marriage, but I also don't want to start pushing people about for their religion. It is their right to hold Christian views if they want and their right to want to keep the Church central to Biblical prose. I think Gay people should be married out of Church sermons. A registrar for example. Why would this bother anyone? (Unless we accept marriage is an intrisically religious thing anyway).

― Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:03 (8 years ago) Permalink

Because the Bible specifically states.....

Said novel also states that the world was created in seven days. In other words, IT'S A CROCK OF SHIT!

Let's all evolve, people.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:04 (8 years ago) Permalink

SASKATOON— There’s a lot at stake for a gay couple hoping to have their marriage recognized when a Saskatoon judge rules on the case Friday.
James and Willie Hein-Blackmore sat together in court Wednesday as they and four other gay couples asked Justice D. L. Wilson to allow them to obtain marriage licences.
The provincial and federal lawyers are not opposing the application, clearing the way for Wilson to rule in the couple’s favour Friday.
That would make Saskatchewan the sixth jurisdiction in Canada to grant wedding licences to gay couples.
The Hein-Blackmores are both HIV-positive. James isn’t sure how long he has to live.
His immune system is so weak a common cold could cause serious complications, he said.
“It’s very important that we get this done (in court),” James said.
“If something happens to me, I want (Willie) making the decisions for me.”
They met four years ago and have been a couple for the past three. Both are divorced from women, and Willie is a father of three girls.
Both say they’ve always known they were gay, but societal and religious pressure led them to marry women.
In Willie’s case, he served as a Pentecostal pastor in other cities across Canada where he lived. He also sat on various church boards. Part of the reason he got married was he “didn’t want to go to hell.”
Once they accepted their homosexuality, they lived much happier lives, they said.
This summer, they were turned down when they went to get a marriage licence in Saskatoon. So they went to Vancouver and got married in a small ceremony at the home of a marriage commissioner.
“When you live together, there’s a certain level of commitment. Once you’re married, it changes the relationship. It’s like glue that holds you together,” said Willie.
“This is the person I want to spend the rest of my life with.”
While the Hein-Blackmores are hoping to get their Vancouver marriage recognized in Saskatchewan, most of the other couples involved in the court action are not yet married.
“We’re very optimistic about the outcome (Friday),” said Nicole White.
“We’re very excited to get going on the wedding plans.”
White and partner Julie Richards were the original couple involved in the court application. They plan to marry next summer.
Represented by lawyers Greg Walen and Sarah Buhler, the couples put their faith in Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equality under the law.
Denial of marriage licences “denigrates same-sex relationships,” Walen said in court.
“It is offensive to human dignity.”
Federal government lawyer Chris Bernier did not oppose the application, but said the federal government could not technically consent to it either, as the Supreme Court is currently considering the issue.
Provincial government lawyer Thomson Irvine took the same neutral position, but said it was because marriage laws are federal.
Outside court, Walen said he’s happy to hear the governments aren’t opposing the application. He said some gay couples have told him they’ll be getting married as early as this Saturday if the ruling is in their favour.
Gay and lesbian couples can marry in Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, the Yukon and now Nova Scotia.
CanWest News Network

― Huk-L, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:05 (8 years ago) Permalink

Genesis is most likely a gigantic metaphor.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:05 (8 years ago) Permalink

Agreed, but I take it a step further.. Forget the civil contract as a substitute for marriage. Any two adults should be able to enter into a "right of survivorship" contract (name it whatever you want) that gives legal rights - it has nothing to do with sex or couples. It could be a married couple, it could be business associates, parent/child, neighbors, friends. You could only have a contract with one person at a time, but it could be changed every week if people wanted to. (That's not practical, but ideally, there would be no restrictions on this.)

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church. And if it makes people happy, the "right of survivorship" contract could be inherent in a marriage (or, registering that legal relationship could be part of the church/marriage registration process - just as marriages are registered with the county currently.) And if "no man can put asunder" the married couple contract - ie you MUST establish that contract with your spouse if you are married & cannot establish that contract with anyone else - then, that'll have to be part of the compromise.

So, anyway - it needs to be approached as contract law and a business deal, rather than a pseudo-marriage.

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:06 (8 years ago) Permalink

And that sort of attitude is going to help bridge a glaring gap between two sets of beliefs how? "Oh your belief sucks", well yeah that'll help won't it? And would you say the same thing about Muslims and their beliefs? Or is it only politically correct to declare open season on Christians?

― Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:06 (8 years ago) Permalink

See above a prime case of the need for rapid evolution among certain members of the human race.

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:07 (8 years ago) Permalink

The Bible nowhere "explicitly states" that gay marriage is wrong.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:08 (8 years ago) Permalink

Yes Kevin, but you can't expect people who've never actually read it to know that can you?

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:08 (8 years ago) Permalink

Kevin OTM; in the Bible, premarital sex is a much larger sin than homosexuality.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:09 (8 years ago) Permalink

Or is it only politically correct to declare open season on Christians?

You've heard of "The War On Terror", no?

― Huk-L, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:09 (8 years ago) Permalink

"Because the Bible specifically states it is a sin"

Where? Chapter and verse please.

Man lying with another man? I'll find my paper to tell you why that indicates nothing clear about God's rules about homosexuality.

― Bumfluff, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (8 years ago) Permalink

What is it about dumb people and their inability to argue in any way that isn't "oh well x is just as bad" rather than actually ARGUING THEIR FUCKING CASE?

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (8 years ago) Permalink

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church.

This also isn't true, and probably hasn't ever been really true.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (8 years ago) Permalink

Check out Paul the Apostle. I don't have a Bible handy just now, but it is indeed declared as a sin. Have YOU read the NT?

― Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (8 years ago) Permalink

Um Huk, I don't think anybody is suggesting Bush is in the slightest bit PC.

x-post

― Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:11 (8 years ago) Permalink

Paul is not Jesus. Paul is a frakish zealot who is almost the antithesis of everything Jesus (and Matthew, Mark and Luke) stands for.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:11 (8 years ago) Permalink

Oh, good point, Steve.n.

― Huk-L, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:12 (8 years ago) Permalink

frakish zealot

(haha nabisco to thread)

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:12 (8 years ago) Permalink

I have never read the bible but I often masturbate myself into a righteous frenzy with it.

Does that help the debate at all?

― Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:13 (8 years ago) Permalink

That's one up on most people.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (8 years ago) Permalink

There would be no Christianity without Paul.............. discuss

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (8 years ago) Permalink

It's a civil rights issue, but it's more than that, and that's precisely because there's a confusion between marriage as a legal union and marriage as a religious union. I agree that these two should be decoupled, ie a secular state should not be legally privileging what is at heart a Christian religious custom. If marriages were things celebrated in church, and were separate from civil unions between people signed in a solicitor's office, it would surely take the wind out of conservative christians's sails. This, incidently was Derrida's position too. From his last interview:

"If I were a legislator, I would quite simply propose the disappearance of the word and the concept of marriage in the civil and secular code. "Marriage", a religious, sacred, heterosexual value - with the vow of procreation, eternal fidelity, etc.-, is a concession on the part of the secular state to the Christian church - in particular in a monogamy that is neither Jewish (it was only imposed on Jews by Europeans in the last century and was not an obligation of Maghrebi Jewry a few generations ago) nor, as we know very well, Muslim. When we take away the word and the concept of "marriage", this religious and holy ambiguity or hypocrisy, which has no place in a secular constitution, we would replace them with a contractual "civil union", a sort of generalized, improved, refined, and supple pact to be fitted between partners whose gender and number are not imposed.

As for those who want to ally themselves in a "marriage" in the strict sense of the term - for which, by the way, my respect remains intact -, they could do so before the religious authority of their choice - which, moreover, is how it happens in those countries which agree to accept the religious consecration of marriage between homosexuals. Some could unite themselves according to one mode or the other, others both ways, others neither by secular nor religious law. End of the conjugal parentheses. (It's a Utopia, but mark my words.)"

― Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (8 years ago) Permalink

And Paul doesn't say anything about gay marriage - homosexuality maybe, but that is the only mention in the new testamnet - he also says that people who engage in such acts are murderers, thieves, liars etc., things which are demonstratably false.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:15 (8 years ago) Permalink

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church.

This also isn't true, and probably hasn't ever been really true.

That's why it's in quotes. I mean to redefine it to make it a non-issue.

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:15 (8 years ago) Permalink

Paul is not Jesus and indeed not God. He is, regrettably, in the Bible, but I tend to forget about him because he's crap.

However, both you and I will have to wait for my rebuttal because i can't get to the paper I have on this for a bit

― Bumfluff, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:16 (8 years ago) Permalink

Paul is a frakish zealot who is almost the antithesis of everything Jesus (and Matthew, Mark and Luke) stands for.

So this Paul, he voted Bush in '04 too?

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:16 (8 years ago) Permalink

Wait, I don't know much about the debate in the USA, but is the debate as to the right for gay people to get married in a Church? Or as a legal agreement? I see people talking about both.

― Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:17 (8 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, sorry Dave. I think it's not a non-issue though. People have always become married independent of religion, for long periods without any ceremony at all. I don't think we should let the religious right redifine marriage to fit their definition - is everyone who didn't get married in a church single now?

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:18 (8 years ago) Permalink

Wait, I don't know much about the debate in the USA, but is the debate as to the right for gay people to get married in a Church? Or as a legal agreement? I see people talking about both.

It's both, but much more on the legal agreement side.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:18 (8 years ago) Permalink

Other than appeasing the bible-belt, why is anyone arguing what the christian bible has to say about it? It's not the only religious book out there.

I don't think we should let the religious right redifine marriage to fit their definition - is everyone who didn't get married in a church single now?
I mean "faith" not "church" -- in other words, it's up to the individuals' own sprituality (or intellect) to decide what a valid "marriage" is. It has nothing to do with law, is my main point.

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:20 (8 years ago) Permalink

This is essentially a civil rights issue. Discrimination against same sex couples flies in the face of the concept of equality under the law. If, as science and experience show, basic sexual orientation is not a choice, criminalizing or marginalizing sexual behaviors amongst consenting adults amounts to an act of the most basic cruelty.

The hypocrisy with which fundamentalists criticize gay marriage but do not outlaw divorce and remarriage, or require an unwed brother to marry his brother's widow, belies the religious basis of their argument. They cherry pick the OT and the NT to find stones to cast at those who are different, which I find particularly repulsive.

The state does have an interest in encouraging stable, long-term partnerships but why the state should recognize 'marriage' if it is essentially a religious ceremony, is beyond me.

― Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:20 (8 years ago) Permalink

If, as science and experience show, basic sexual orientation is not a choice

I thought this had been rejected/disproven by gay groups?

― Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:22 (8 years ago) Permalink

I don't understand why the getting-married-in-church thing is an issue. If gay marriage were legalised would it not be down to the individual churches to decide whether or not to allow gay couples to get married in that particular church?

― RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:23 (8 years ago) Permalink

(Church meaning denomination or congregation there, btw, I don't think it really affects my point either way.)

― RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:24 (8 years ago) Permalink

As I said, are we just declaring open season on Christianity right now or are we going to start criticising the instant death penalty handed out within Muslim countries for homosexuality? WELL?

― Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (8 years ago) Permalink

Yes, it would.

x-post

― Leon in Exile (Ex Leon), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (8 years ago) Permalink

I just read a news item - Sec. State Blackwell (Ohio) speaking against gay marriage .. not a quote, but asserts that marriage is for the purpose of procreation, which you can't do with a gay couple. This offends me to no end .. and to debate him on his own terms, leaving out the gay arguments - my wife and I have decided not to have children. Are we no longer allowed to be married? What about people who can't physically have children?

God, I hate that idiot.

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:26 (8 years ago) Permalink

xp - Indeed it would. And that would closely resemble a constitutionally-guaranteed right called Freedom of Religion.

― briania (briania), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:26 (8 years ago) Permalink

you first 'Chantel'

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (8 years ago) Permalink

I don't understand why the getting-married-in-church thing is an issue.

I don't think that really is an issue - anyone/any church can call two people married, the issue is that the rest of society doesn't have to recognize it.

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (8 years ago) Permalink

The word "marriage" is charged with religious meaning, which is why I think it'd be best to jettison it from a legal opint of view and just talk about civil unions. This is what they've essentially done in France, where gay couples (or straight couples or brothers and sisters or whatever) can sign a PACS (pacte civile de solidarité) which affords most of the rights of marriage.

― Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:28 (8 years ago) Permalink

unfortuneately, "civil union" is also stigmatized as "a way for queers to approximate marriage".. So a new term is needed.

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:29 (8 years ago) Permalink

Chantel, I don't think you will find anyone supporting the death penalt in muslim nations here. And probably not the death penalty anywhere.

However, I won't allow the Bible to be misinterpreted, twisted and wielded to hateful ends. The arguments will have to come both in the religious world and the secular, because like it or not we live in a christian civilisation.

But Jonathan, why can't a christian gay souple get married in a church which recognises their partnership?

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:30 (8 years ago) Permalink

As I said, are we just declaring open season on Christianity right now or are we going to start criticising the instant death penalty handed out within Muslim countries for homosexuality? WELL?

This kind of argument really pisses me off. YES THERE ARE THINGS WRONG IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES AS WELL, I know. But rather than talking about something I know nothing about and have no contact with, I would rather talk about something I know about, think is wrong and have a chance of changing.

― Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:30 (8 years ago) Permalink

Skipping 2466 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

My pool keeps expanding.

― A deeper shade of lol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 May 2013 22:15 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

All the bankers you could want!

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 7 May 2013 22:19 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

My fears/hopes for some dramatically scandalous, last-minute backstabbing in the MN chambers this Thursday are apparently unfounded.

http://www.startribune.com/local/206486551.html

House Speaker Paul Thissen, of Minneapolis, said that the 73-member Democratic majority he leads will produce at least the 68 votes needed to pass the bill. Senate leaders are also confident of passage, and Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton has promised to sign the bill, which would allow gay couples to marry as of Aug. 1.
...
No House Republicans have committed to vote for the bill. Thissen said while their votes are not needed, they would be appreciated.
...
Richard Carlbom, who heads Minnesotans United, a group that campaigned against last fall's amendment and has subsequently pushed the gay marriage bill through the legislative process, said the group has been conservative in its vote counting, and that commitments from legislators have been double- and triple-checked.

― Not Simone Choule (Eric H.), Wednesday, 8 May 2013 02:04 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

And boom:

http://www.startribune.com/politics/206794041.html

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 9 May 2013 20:49 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Cherry on top:

https://twitter.com/RuPaulsDragRace/status/332590842088923136

RuPaul's Drag Race ‏@RuPaulsDragRace
#Minnesota the House down #MarriageEquality

― Not Simone Choule (Eric H.), Thursday, 9 May 2013 21:00 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Alfred, will you marry me?

― Not Simone Choule (Eric H.), Thursday, 9 May 2013 21:00 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I'd love you even if turned out you didn't like marriage at all!

― A deeper shade of lol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 May 2013 21:03 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Glory, hallelujah.

― Not Simone Choule (Eric H.), Thursday, 9 May 2013 21:04 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Bars and punch in the fellowship hall after the ceremony.

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 9 May 2013 21:20 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I've been holding the assumption we can only gay marry Alfred once it's legalized in Florida.

― The Reverend, Thursday, 9 May 2013 21:47 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

What if I just invited Charlie Crist up here to the MN nuptials instead?

― Not Simone Choule (Eric H.), Thursday, 9 May 2013 21:56 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

really want it to be all 50 soon so the gays can move on to important shit

(j/k... as if)

― ballin' from Maine to Mexico (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 9 May 2013 23:55 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Our own Eric H. is on the scene:

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 13 May 2013 17:12 (1 week ago) Permalink

I'm particularly pleased for the friend and ex-neighbour I once babysat (starting when she was two months old), who is now a lawyer in Minneapolis. She married her girlfriend in Massachusetts last fall and has been very active in lobbying for gay marriage in Minnesota, along with her very politically mixed family.

In other news, Michele Bachmann is threatening to LEAVE MINNESOTA if/when this thing passes. LOOOOOOOOL.

― karl lagerlout (suzy), Monday, 13 May 2013 18:35 (1 week ago) Permalink

That means she has to resign from Congress, yes? Bring it.

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 13 May 2013 18:36 (1 week ago) Permalink

omg win/win

― far too much asshole flesh (DJP), Monday, 13 May 2013 18:36 (1 week ago) Permalink

If it means getting her out of Congress, I'll marry Bachmann.

― A deeper shade of lol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 13 May 2013 18:44 (1 week ago) Permalink

marry her husband instead, that will really drive her crazy

― far too much asshole flesh (DJP), Monday, 13 May 2013 18:45 (1 week ago) Permalink

Oops, enthusiastic Facebook sharers in NOT RECOGNISING SATIRE (half a dozen of my ex-classmates and their sibs are LGBT activists so I just got spammed repeatedly). But still, someone should hide in her bushes* and pretend to be God, saying 'thou shalt go forth from this accursed place in haste, lest My door smite thine arse'.

*I added the bushes for you, Dan. Do your worst.

― karl lagerlout (suzy), Monday, 13 May 2013 18:47 (1 week ago) Permalink

maybe if someone was hiding in her bushes she'd be a little more relaxed/tolerable

(how was that?)

― far too much asshole flesh (DJP), Monday, 13 May 2013 18:51 (1 week ago) Permalink

Poisonous insects lurk in those bushes!

― A deeper shade of lol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 13 May 2013 18:55 (1 week ago) Permalink

getting Bachmann out of Congress will change so, so much

― ballin' from Maine to Mexico (Dr Morbius), Monday, 13 May 2013 18:57 (1 week ago) Permalink

Well, my parents might thank st jude I married a conservative woman.

― A deeper shade of lol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 13 May 2013 18:59 (1 week ago) Permalink

Roffles:

That measure failed on a 26-41 vote, with Republican Sen. Brenden Petersen, of Andover, and Karin Housley, of St. Mary’s Point, voting no. Petersen is a co-sponsor of the sex-sex marriage legalization bill and Housley has said publicly that she was unsure how she would vote on same-sex marriage.

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 13 May 2013 19:02 (1 week ago) Permalink

"Not enough sex in marriage. DOUBLE the sex."

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 13 May 2013 19:02 (1 week ago) Permalink

"I now pronounce you sex and sex."

"That'll happen."

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 13 May 2013 19:03 (1 week ago) Permalink

which marriage license are you applying for? no sex, sex, or sex-sex

― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Monday, 13 May 2013 19:04 (1 week ago) Permalink

"There's a DJP on the phone, wants the ultrasex license."

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 13 May 2013 19:06 (1 week ago) Permalink

"Also everyone from Hastings is calling, wants to know what sex is."

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 13 May 2013 19:06 (1 week ago) Permalink

haha if there is one problem our town doesn't have

― O_o-O_O-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, 13 May 2013 19:36 (1 week ago) Permalink

I was gonna say, one of our classmates just posted to Facebook about how her oldest just turned 23 today

― far too much asshole flesh (DJP), Monday, 13 May 2013 19:38 (1 week ago) Permalink

"They called back and explained they wanted to know when to stop."

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 13 May 2013 19:40 (1 week ago) Permalink

is there a platinum unlimited sex license for hastings

― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Monday, 13 May 2013 20:06 (1 week ago) Permalink

it's more like aluminum

― far too much asshole flesh (DJP), Monday, 13 May 2013 20:08 (1 week ago) Permalink

unobtainium

― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Monday, 13 May 2013 20:09 (1 week ago) Permalink

also it has a pull tab

― O_o-O_O-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, 13 May 2013 21:21 (1 week ago) Permalink

And done

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2013/05/senate_approves_marriage_equality.php

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 13 May 2013 21:23 (1 week ago) Permalink

Let's all get married to Eric H. in Brainerd.

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 13 May 2013 21:26 (1 week ago) Permalink

And at long last, Minnesota's most famous wedding is legal:

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 13 May 2013 21:32 (1 week ago) Permalink

Wait.... so Michelle B did or did not actually say that the Twin Cities would be destroyed by God??

― Je55e, Monday, 13 May 2013 21:40 (1 week ago) Permalink

A: She did not.

Damn it. This is the first time I'm aware of that I've been fooled by fake news! But really, it was 100% believable!

― Je55e, Monday, 13 May 2013 21:41 (1 week ago) Permalink

She meant they would be destroyed by A-Rod.

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 13 May 2013 21:42 (1 week ago) Permalink

Nah this is MN we're talking about, she meant they would be destroyed by Joe Mauer.

― a monolithic testament to shiftlessness and lost productivity (dan m), Monday, 13 May 2013 21:45 (1 week ago) Permalink

I just searched 'evil Joe Mauer' on Google and

About 1,220,000 results (0.40 seconds)

https://twitter.com/EvilJoeMauer

So I'm inclined to agree with you.

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 13 May 2013 21:47 (1 week ago) Permalink

lol Blaine is the new SODOM (for gay sex devil worship orgy, it's the second left past Jimmy John's & Papa Murphy's)

"In my heart, I grieve on both sides. Because I know what it's like to be alone and I know what it is like to have somebody close to you and love you. But I grieve inside because I feel we are opening the doors to Sodom and Gomorra. And in the end, God is going to be the judge," said Nelson, of Blaine, tears running down her cheeks.

― jay-z's ansari (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Monday, 13 May 2013 22:31 (1 week ago) Permalink

Guys. My ears hurt sooooooooooooooo bad right now.

― Not Simone Choule (Eric H.), Monday, 13 May 2013 22:41 (1 week ago) Permalink

you're doing it wrong

― UTW, USA, ILX LIFER (forksclovetofu), Tuesday, 14 May 2013 16:16 (1 week ago) Permalink

were they chanting "The people united / Will not be put asunder"?

I have a photo of me on that MST set, marrying no one.

― ballin' from Maine to Mexico (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 14 May 2013 16:25 (1 week ago) Permalink

I'll say this: the crowd ran through their entire songbook in far less than the four or five hours they were amassed.

― Not Simone Choule (Eric H.), Tuesday, 14 May 2013 17:12 (1 week ago) Permalink

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/george-takei-responds-to-traditional-marriage-fans

looooove this

― the Quim of Bendigo (Autumn Almanac), Monday, 20 May 2013 03:54 (5 days ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.