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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 years ago) Permalink

Thanks for the offer but I'm spoken for

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:00 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 years ago) Permalink

Genesis is most likely a gigantic metaphor.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:05 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 years ago) Permalink

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

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:08 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 years ago) Permalink

Oh, good point, Steve.n.

Huk-L, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:12 (9 years ago) Permalink

frakish zealot

(haha nabisco to thread)

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:12 (9 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 (9 years ago) Permalink

That's one up on most people.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (9 years ago) Permalink

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

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 years ago) Permalink

Yes, it would.

x-post

Leon in Exile (Ex Leon), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (9 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 (9 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 (9 years ago) Permalink

you first 'Chantel'

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 years ago) Permalink

soon you guys can marry me everywhere except my home state!

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 20 May 2014 12:05 (3 months ago) Permalink

Cronk's Not Cronk (Eric H.), Tuesday, 20 May 2014 12:06 (3 months ago) Permalink

Pennsylvania in:

https://twitter.com/aclupa/status/468820701831770112

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 20 May 2014 18:36 (3 months ago) Permalink

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-judge-strikes-down-pennsylvania-same-sex-marriage-ba

In the order, filed moments later, Jones wrote the state defendants are “permanently enjoined” from enforcing the ban. He provided for no stay of his order, meaning it is effective immediately.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 20 May 2014 18:49 (3 months ago) Permalink

Should be noted Jones was appointed by W. and recommended by Santorum. Hope the latter has some REAL bad heartburn.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 20 May 2014 18:51 (3 months ago) Permalink

Chris Hayes devoted a segment last week to explaining how Scalia's dissents in gay cases have proven most useful.

http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/happy-valentines-from-justice-scalia-153225795988

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 20 May 2014 19:30 (3 months ago) Permalink

Should be noted Jones was appointed by W. and recommended by Santorum. Hope the latter has some REAL bad heartburn.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, May 20, 2014 2:51 PM (45 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

We here in PA are really experiencing schadenfreude about that. :D

back-up duck (doo dah), Tuesday, 20 May 2014 19:37 (3 months ago) Permalink

Anyone wanna come marry me now?

aaliyah papi (Stevie D(eux)), Tuesday, 20 May 2014 20:56 (3 months ago) Permalink

Roffling at Corbett basically going 'uh...hold on.'

https://twitter.com/GovernorCorbett/status/468865949417107458

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 20 May 2014 22:57 (3 months ago) Permalink

I'll marry you, Stevie, as long as we can get divorced in time for me to marry Alfred.

The Reverend, Tuesday, 20 May 2014 23:55 (3 months ago) Permalink

wait but I wanna marry alfred too

aaliyah papi (Stevie D(eux)), Wednesday, 21 May 2014 00:03 (3 months ago) Permalink

We can be a thrupple, but I'm letting Alfred take the fall for bigamy if it comes to that.

The Reverend, Wednesday, 21 May 2014 00:22 (3 months ago) Permalink

wca (would cry at)

goole, Wednesday, 21 May 2014 03:47 (3 months ago) Permalink

No appeal from Corbett

http://www.phillymag.com/g-philly/2014/05/21/governor-corbett-pa-marriage-ruling/

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 21 May 2014 19:27 (3 months ago) Permalink

Bigamy to Alfred: Your Thoughts

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 21 May 2014 19:58 (3 months ago) Permalink

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/gay-marriage-states-legal-map

^^^ up-to-date map, clearly showing "legal" versus "ban struck down, appeal pending." Kind of spectacular.

Doctor Casino, Wednesday, 21 May 2014 20:00 (3 months ago) Permalink

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/08/06/mn-now-has-one-of-its-first-same-sex-divorces/

sounds like trash news but it's an interesting situation

goole, Wednesday, 28 May 2014 21:30 (3 months ago) Permalink

4 weeks pass...

10th Circuit Court upholds same-sex marriage

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58007681-78/marriage-court-sex-utah.html.csp

mattresslessness, Wednesday, 25 June 2014 16:42 (2 months ago) Permalink

Plus, Indiana ruling.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 25 June 2014 16:50 (2 months ago) Permalink

Marry, Indiana!
(What a wonderful day.)
Hooray for Richard Young, of judiciary fame.

Marry, Indiana, as an Alfred would say,
Trips along softly on the tongue this way:
Marry, Indiana, marry Indiana, marry, Indiana,
Let the state's ban now be dead
Marry, Indiana, Marry Indiana, Marry, Indiana,
That's the state for newlyweds

Doctor Casino, Wednesday, 25 June 2014 18:16 (2 months ago) Permalink

Does this mean if it goes to the supremes we are potentially done with this whole thing?

The Reverend, Thursday, 26 June 2014 00:24 (2 months ago) Permalink

well once we thought the whole abortion thing was doing okish

j., Thursday, 26 June 2014 00:28 (2 months ago) Permalink

Mm. In this case, though, overt public support for the banning of gay marriage is rapidly collapsing, and the fact that more and more GOP figures have just simply stopped talking about it is as telling a sign as any. (Yeah, idiot platform statements and vague declarations and pandering to 'the base' but please, compared to ten years ago -- hell, five -- that's still a collapse.) This is a done deal, the question is the exact timing. That said a couple of friends still think this could go state by state; still, giving the 10th Circuit ruling today, it's kinda hard NOT to see this as being decided nationwide in the end.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 26 June 2014 01:07 (2 months ago) Permalink

St. Louis challenges Missouri ban on gay marriage

ST. LOUIS (AP) -- St. Louis officials have challenged Missouri's constitutional ban on gay marriage by issuing four same-sex marriage licenses in a City Hall ceremony.

Four gay couples were married Wednesday in the office of Mayor Francis Slay in a ceremony presided over by a municipal judge.

Attorney General Chris Koster went to court Thursday seeking to stop the marriages.

St. Louis Circuit Judge Rex Burlison denied a temporary restraining order but will consider whether to grant an injunction at a later date.

Burlison said St. Louis officials have agreed not to issue more marriage licenses to same-sex couples at this time and would do so in the future only after notifying the court and attorney general's office.

State voters approved the constitutional ban on gay marriage in 2004.

Cronk's Not Cronk (Eric H.), Thursday, 26 June 2014 15:29 (2 months ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

ALFRED IS MINE.

The Reverend, Friday, 18 July 2014 15:08 (1 month ago) Permalink

Almost there but am taking requests so I'm ready when the Florida Supreme Court decides.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 18 July 2014 15:13 (1 month ago) Permalink

need to examine yr health plan, send details

son of a lewd monk (Dr Morbius), Friday, 18 July 2014 15:14 (1 month ago) Permalink

I only do peccadilloes now. Time was not on our side.

You are exactly why people root for the apes (Eric H.), Friday, 18 July 2014 17:08 (1 month ago) Permalink

I make a mean arroz con picadillo.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 18 July 2014 17:37 (1 month ago) Permalink

pack o' dildos

son of a lewd monk (Dr Morbius), Friday, 18 July 2014 18:40 (1 month ago) Permalink

First one to translate that sentence into Spanish gets my picadillo.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 18 July 2014 20:17 (1 month ago) Permalink

Hell, the entire Fourth Circuit area, it seems

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2014/07/breaking-fourth-circuit-court-strikes.html

Ned Raggett, Monday, 28 July 2014 18:19 (1 month ago) Permalink

wow, that's huge and a major step into red state territory

go ahead. make vid where u rap about this new TMNT movie. (forksclovetofu), Monday, 28 July 2014 18:26 (1 month ago) Permalink

2 weeks pass...

In Mississippi, Campaign for Southern Equality organized a day for couples married in other states to record their marriages at the local level. In Starkville, the Chancery Court clerk sez "sure, cool by me" --

http://www.wtva.com/news/local/story/Same-sex-couple-records-marriage-license-in/KvOHeePyCESU4OqZVHI1zA.cspx

Cindy Operahouse (WilliamC), Wednesday, 13 August 2014 18:48 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Meanwhile, what happened in Tennessee?

You are exactly why people root for the apes (Eric H.), Wednesday, 13 August 2014 18:56 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Roane county is firmly red state; when they eventually appeal in Davidson things may run differently.

go ahead. make vid where u rap about this new TMNT movie. (forksclovetofu), Wednesday, 13 August 2014 19:05 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Also, no stay in the Fourth Circuit; it's up to SCOTUS to put one in or not pending appeal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/federal-judges-refuse-to-stay-decision-striking-va-same-sex-marriage-ban/2014/08/13/a695193a-2303-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html?hpid=z4

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 19:19 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 13 August 2014 19:24 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

This fall on ABC.

You are exactly why people root for the apes (Eric H.), Wednesday, 13 August 2014 20:22 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I'm picking out my wedding gown. See you soon, my betrothed.

The Reverend, Friday, 22 August 2014 16:07 (1 week ago) Permalink

So glad I waited til my wedding night!

It's Autumn Sunrise (Eric H.), Friday, 22 August 2014 16:12 (1 week ago) Permalink

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 22 August 2014 16:16 (1 week ago) Permalink

Not til after we tie the knot!

The Reverend, Friday, 22 August 2014 16:39 (1 week ago) Permalink

I'm having the ring appraised next week.

It's Autumn Sunrise (Eric H.), Friday, 22 August 2014 17:00 (1 week ago) Permalink

I'm having you appraised next week

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 22 August 2014 17:01 (1 week ago) Permalink

It's Autumn Sunrise (Eric H.), Friday, 22 August 2014 17:03 (1 week ago) Permalink

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 22 August 2014 17:04 (1 week ago) Permalink


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