I'm glad they kept it ethical, with the chance encounter later, instead of having a doctor and patient dating.
― the Smurf who'll snatch your money (Je55e), Friday, 6 January 2012 23:55 (fourteen years ago)
One of my best friends works for Archie now and is involved with those story lines. So proud.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 7 January 2012 02:50 (fourteen years ago)
My first cousin, Paul Kupperberg, is the scripter for that comic. He's loving the hell out of writing it.
― i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Saturday, 7 January 2012 14:55 (fourteen years ago)
cool!
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 7 January 2012 15:00 (fourteen years ago)
I'm curious about how the Kevin Keller story came to be. Somebody had to think it was risky, right? Guess I could Google it, but Phil and Alfred, do you guys have any info you can share?
― the Smurf who'll snatch your money (Je55e), Saturday, 7 January 2012 16:26 (fourteen years ago)
congrats, k3vin!
― pug waffle (Whiney G. Weingarten), Saturday, 7 January 2012 16:33 (fourteen years ago)
Paul posted this today on his FB page - he showed up as Quote of the Day on Comic Book Resources:
“I guess the idiot lunatic fringe does some bitching and moaning about it. But the reaction that I’ve seen has been positive. It’s been ‘This is great—thank you! It’s about time! These are the kind of stories we want to see.’ And if people can’t deal with it, well, go away, don’t read it. That’s okay. I don’t care what you think. [...] When the story broke a month or two ago, there was a comment left on some Fox News site, and they didn’t cite me by name, but it was essentially ‘Whoever would write and draw and publish such a story should get AIDS and die.’ And you know … I thought that was great. [Laughs] I have so much power that I can write a simple comic-book story and that can cause you to wish me death! I am mighty. [Laughs]”
From a longer interview here.
― i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Friday, 13 January 2012 18:22 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/gay-marriage-137909658.html
Wash. has enough votes to legalize gay marriageBy RACHEL LA CORTE and MIKE BAKER Associated Press Published: Jan 23, 2012 at 12:11 PM PST Last Updated: Jan 23, 2012 at 12:52 PM PST
Comments (50) print email
Wash. has enough votes to legalize gay marriageOLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Gay marriage proponents urged their supporters not to become complacent following news the Legislature has enough votes to make Washington the seventh state to legalize same-sex marriage.
Democratic Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen says she'll support the measure, becoming the 25th vote needed to pass the bill out of the Senate.
The House already has enough support, and Gov. Chris Gregoire has endorsed the plan. Rep. Jamie Pedersen, a Seattle Democrat who is the sponsor of the House gay marriage bill, said at a news conference that the issue is not yet resolved. It's likely that opponents of gay marriage will oppose the measure on a statewide ballot.
If ultimately approved, Washington would join New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia in approving gay marriage.
― The Reverend, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 00:26 (fourteen years ago)
dccccccccccccccccccccccc
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 04:44 (fourteen years ago)
rong washington
― The Reverend, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 09:51 (fourteen years ago)
Dan Savage is getting glitterbombed for being pro-gay marriage.
To wit...
"Savage is taking on being a speaker and leader in this movement. We have to take that into account. He's part of a broader [group] of gay, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied gay men focused on gay-marriage priorities. We want to say those priorities are messed up."
― dead-trius (Eric H.), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 19:16 (fourteen years ago)
I want marriage eq in all states so Savage can disappear
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 19:53 (fourteen years ago)
isn't it already legal in dcccc
― iatee, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 19:54 (fourteen years ago)
― Chaka Collar, lemme rock you (DJP), Tuesday, 24 January 2012 19:54 (fourteen years ago)
Thread that needle.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 23:05 (fourteen years ago)
Why do Towleroad links always get messed up. Didn't find the story about Savage, but still got to see this, which is always a treat
http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c730253ef016761054204970b-pi
― Je55e, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 05:09 (fourteen years ago)
Passed the Washington state senate, will pass in the House next week and will be signed by the governor.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/02/01/state-senate-approves-same-sex-marriage/
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 2 February 2012 04:36 (fourteen years ago)
Yup. :)
― lag∞n affiliated (The Reverend), Thursday, 2 February 2012 16:29 (fourteen years ago)
Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional
and now on to the SC
― max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:57 (fourteen years ago)
question now is is this going to be THE defining Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage
― max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:58 (fourteen years ago)
When Scalia concocts his spurious line of reasoning to reinstate Prop 8, you can be sure he'll be joined by Roberts, Alito and Thomas. That just leaves one vote lacking for some more mind-bogglingly bad reasoning to become precedent and start infecting the well for other rights issues. Let's hope that vote is lacking.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:15 (fourteen years ago)
I can't see Kennedy siding with them on this, but anything is possible.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:20 (fourteen years ago)
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/btb/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Prop8Ruling.pdf
― le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:25 (fourteen years ago)
lol @ boxturtlebulletin that is awesome
― max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:26 (fourteen years ago)
Sully says the court's website was down
― le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:27 (fourteen years ago)
I've just always loved the "if we allow gay marriage, next people will be marrying box turtles!" logic
― max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:29 (fourteen years ago)
It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right… Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife. - John Cornyn, box turtle enthusiast
― max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:31 (fourteen years ago)
Boozhwa 02/07/12 13:10Which constitution did they use? Is it one Ginsburg would recommend?
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:32 (fourteen years ago)
you all laugh but i still can't marry my box turtle thanks to this screwed-up society and i feel really oppressed about it
― Prince Rebus (donna rouge), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:37 (fourteen years ago)
It's a very narrow ruling. They don't even need to overturn the 9th Circuit judgment for the precedent to be messy.
This is just from the headnote, mind you, I haven't had time to read the whole thing. But basically the ruling is made on the grounds that because California had substantive equality in a lot of ways, the ONLY potential purpose of Prop 8 was to deny the term 'marriage' and this is discriminatory and unconstitutional.
The ruling doesn't make any holding on whether there are potentially legitimate reasons for gay marriage bans in contexts where there is less equality generally.
― Somewhere between Fergie and Jesus (Alex in Montreal), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:41 (fourteen years ago)
i.e. There is plenty of space for the Supremes to affirm this ruling and phrase its meaning narrowly as 'it is unconstitutional to ban gay marriage when a state has already granted gays substantial rights', while continuing to permit the more discriminatory states to continue as they've been doing.
― Somewhere between Fergie and Jesus (Alex in Montreal), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:43 (fourteen years ago)
Which would be pretty typical, no?
― le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:45 (fourteen years ago)
any chance SCOTUS won't grant cert?
― tinker tailor soldier sb (silby), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:11 (fourteen years ago)
It's a possibility it won't.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:14 (fourteen years ago)
Extreme narrowness of grounds for judicial opinion in the pursuit of freedom is no vice. But it is the sort of virtue that, if it turned sideways, would disappear entirely.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:34 (fourteen years ago)
Maggie speaks
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:10 (fourteen years ago)
that headline is OTM
― I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:13 (fourteen years ago)
7 million irrational bigots can't be wrong
― max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:16 (fourteen years ago)
No point in beating around the bush.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:17 (fourteen years ago)
what kind of phrase is "ill-natured logic" anyway
― max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:18 (fourteen years ago)
logic that someone doesn't like
― rob, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:18 (fourteen years ago)
As an instructor with no formal legal training it still amazes me how often people forget that when they read The Great Gatsby or Macbeth in high school nobody agreed on interpretations.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:19 (fourteen years ago)
I'm getting tired of waiting to marry Alfred in all these states
― Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:21 (fourteen years ago)
I'm claiming him in MS, bud.
― Steamtable Willie (WmC), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:32 (fourteen years ago)
Gonna marry him in WA very soon.
― lag∞n affiliated (The Reverend), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 21:37 (fourteen years ago)
has polygamy been OK'd by the Supreme Court
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 21:41 (fourteen years ago)
only in OK
― I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 21:45 (fourteen years ago)
i've set up a bevmo gift registry
― Prince Rebus (donna rouge), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 21:45 (fourteen years ago)
Toobin doesn't think SC will even take this up, given the ruling's California-specific nature. kinda clever of the judges to rule this way, if their intention was to avoid a SC showdown
― max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 00:44 (fourteen years ago)
I hope so but I bet it won't be too hard to find 120,577 assholes who want put it to a vote and I'm kind of scared how that will turn out.
― joygoat, Wednesday, 8 February 2012 04:09 (fourteen years ago)