Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan9
Yeah, yeah... everybody has the right to be miserable together using a spinelessly binding contract as ancient as homophobia itself... but do we have to involve that tacky-ass rainbow motif so much? I mean, they're gay... fonts of "good taste." You'd think they'd come up with something more fashionable.
Seriously.
....and women voting. Call me a cynic; we're not all Vermont here.
|
Of course you're a cynic. It's what I love about you. But seriously, (as you say,) in which states do they have a problem with women voting?
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
apparently the backwater is pissed... new york--with a republican-controlled legislature--has taken a step out of the backwater by recognizing the obvious right of people to love whom they choose and avail themselves of the advantages and protections of the civil institution of marriage.
|
I can't believe my eyes.
Is roachboy actually acknowledging that perhaps not all republicans are homophobic, reactionary asshats that should be shipped off to re-education camps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
It's time for federal legislation.
|
Oh goody. Another one of those "No Lawyer Left Behind" acts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by levite
I am pleased about NY's common compassion in this matter. And echo Will's disgust at California's shameful inability to yet produce similar results (and to prevent the reverse from occurring).
Nonetheless, I wish that the Federal government would resolve this issue in what I think would be the best manner possible: get American governments out of the marriage business. I think all government "marriages" should be reclassified as "civil unions," whether they are for straight or gay people. Let the religions have "marriage." That way the semantics get rid of more arguments, and there is more separation of religion and state.
But that's just my $0.02....
|
Worth looking at further. You go to church, temple, or mosque for marriage, or you go to a judge (or the county clerk) for a civil union, which has all the benefits (and drawbacks) of a marriage and must be legally recognized as such by all. Those churches which choose not to (recognize) can still claim the moral high ground, and the "sanctity" of the word marriage, even though they have been outflanked legally. Works for me.
Lindy