Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

I've found one place where there's room to grow.

Oh wait, that's not what I meant.

thanks shakes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYt4emUdzZs

We Were Here finally available on Netflix.

no marriages there

A Dem prez almost as evolved as Dick Cheney; who could ask for anything less?

That joke was pretty fresh a few days ago

wonder what James Buchanan would've said

he'd have been pissed about king county, washington

don't worry poly, I'm sure Bam will be fresh enough to croon the entire Atlantic soul catalog before the campaign is o'er.

holding out for stax/volt tbh

Hoping for "Tighten Up" myself, except he'd be using it to explain why he's caving to GOP budget cutters.

Mr Big Stuff would be a winner imo

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer-noted-psychiatrist-apologizes-for-study-on-gay-cure.html

not sure where to put this

btw, i now search for this thread by querying "gay alfred"

funny -- that's how tricks search for me

don't they usually get the Batcave?

Stonewall Was a Wedding?

http://jacobinmag.com/blog/2012/05/stonewall-was-a-wedding/

in a city where 40% of homeless youth are LGBT.

You know, every time I read things like this, I flash back on how happy those gay youth seemed to me in Paris is Burning. They were up at midnight, drinking orange Crush, just hanging out, summertime. Awesome.

And then, of course, I think about how unhappy they must be now, all grown up and domesticated and hitched and bored and boring.

don't be a player hater
being domesticated is rad

Gay marriage proponents feed us two flavors of justification for their crusade. For the romantics they supply fantasy — the notion that legal inclusion brings social justice; for the cynics, they tout the thousand individual rights that a marriage certificate bestows.

And for the lunatics, a third flavor: You were never going to be normal anyway.

hi! who wants to get married?

I do!

So long as it can be loveless, sexless and sheerly totemistic.

/Gay marriage proponents feed us two flavors of justification for their crusade. For the romantics they supply fantasy — the notion that legal inclusion brings social justice; for the cynics, they tout the thousand individual rights that a marriage certificate bestows./

surely it's easier to not come up with any of that dumb shit and just let people get on with it

No, it's true. Marriage is going to make rich gay people start to want to buy stuff from Crate & Barrel and Room & Board and god knows what else. Better to keep them from marriage and force them to continue in their ascetic but charitable tradition.

gay + marriage = rich gay

well if teh gays get all this money then the rich straight guys won't be able to get the buttsecks in subway bathrooms from poor rentboys. I mean, it's simple math really. it's so much more romantic when they stay poor and desperate.

FFS

Stonewall was to let the world know that gays are employable. Oh and human. AND THAT'S IT.

I get romanticising the struggle but this is really kinda ridiculous.

never mind, there's a p healthy supply of closeted conservatives prepared to get their same-sex rocks off in cubicles xp

lol

I can't paste it from my iPad but commenter "Tarzie" does a pretty good job of telling her to STFU

Look no further than Argentina for real leadership in queer politics. While we were busy patting ourselves on the back, the Argentine legislature passed the Gender Identity Law, arguably the most gender-affirming bill in any country, to date. Argentineans can now change their legal genders without having to demonstrate any medical treatment, and the public and private healthcare systems in the country are banned from charging extra for gender-related therapies or procedures. These changes may not have the comforting ring of wedding bells, but they address administrative inequalities that present huge obstacles to trans people in accessing basic services.

Argentina managed to make both the Gender Identity Law AND gay marriage realities.

xp - VG OTM re "Tarzie"( + others)

on the other side of the coin

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3sj5yPIiJ1qace89o1_1280.png

Gay marriage doesn't "infuriate" most ppl who raise questions about current 'progressive' attitudes toward it. They are mostly saying it's not the end of the rainbow.

"Raise questions" is an awfully rainbow-tinted way of putting it.

dunno, rainbows don't mean shit to me

motherfuck them and john wayne

"Don't Worry Be Happy"

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/05/31/boston_court_us_gay_marriage_law_unconstitutional/

Namely:

An appeals court has ruled that a law that denies a host of federal benefits to same-sex married couples is unconstitutional.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled Thursday that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.

The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004.

In 2010, a federal judge in Massachusetts declared the heart of the law unconstitutional in two separate lawsuits. The judge found that the law interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.

awesome

Two of the judges are Reagan and Poppy Bush appointees, respectively.

*tut tut* such activist judges

So, I'm really rusty on law, et al, but angling on state-by-state arguments means tough titty for the 30-odd states that have written gay marriage bans into their constitutions, right?

not if it goes to the Honorable Anthony Kennedy

discriminatory state laws will be struck down as well if the SC rules that discriminating against same-sex couples is unconstitutional. it's the same basic legal principle used to strike down Jim Crow laws.

so it depends how broad the SC ruling is. If SC strikes down DOMA just on grounds of it being an infringement on states' rights, then yeah those state laws will still stand.