Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

lol works for me

Mazel tov, Alfred!

Eric is the one threatening to relocate in the face of legal discrimination, I think he should be getting the bulk of the proposals.

Yeah, but I'm running away from marriage to Alfred.

Works for me. You'll have to endure my screwball comedy collection though.

Sounds a lot like my conjugal arrangements. 'My Man Godfrey' or 'Bringing Up Baby'? Oh, wait maybe 'The Lady Eve'.

I'm a strict Lover Come Hack To Me honeymooner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXpOA3jPC04

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXpOA3jPC04

so happy for alfred

Rev likes this.

who is that person and did i vote for them

funny to read the first few posts itt with the new thread title in mind.

i know we've covered this a billion times but i've finally come around to thinking that marriage is regressive and civil partnerships/groupings/co-owners of gay or whatever you want to call it are where it's at. the end.

that really only works if you strip the civil benefits of marriage out of all unions and leave "marriage" to be a symbolic religious ceremony, otherwise you are setting up segregated "separate but equal" tracks; also it's likely to be an unsatisfactory answer for gay couple who want to have their marriage performed by their (presumably willing) church

i know we've covered this a billion times but i've finally come around to thinking that marriage is regressive and civil partnerships/groupings/co-owners of gay or whatever you want to call it are where it's at. the end.

Guess I won't be checking out your ass at Score next Saturday.

that really only works if you strip the civil benefits of marriage out of all unions and leave "marriage" to be a symbolic religious ceremony, otherwise you are setting up segregated "separate but equal" tracks; also it's likely to be an unsatisfactory answer for gay couple who want to have their marriage performed by their (presumably willing) church

― Dreaded Burrito Gang (DJP), Tuesday, May 3, 2011 1:41 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah, this. so not gonna happen, i know. i guess all i'm saying is if i were offered the choice to marry, i would only consider doing it for tax/legal benefits, and even then i doubt i would do it, just because the word doesn't fit/describe/empower the reality of my current relationship, and i don't really think i can define "marriage" for myself, outside of where it comes from.

alfred why would this decision affect your view of my ass

This thread is about marriage to ME, heathen.

guess all i'm saying is if i were offered the choice to marry, i would only consider doing it for tax/legal benefits,

But this is why lots of straights get marrried too!

i mean i used to have more sympathy for gays who wanted to get a "traditional" marriage, but now i gotta say i side more with ilx poster "table is the table," i.e. i think it's a limiting and kind of depressing semantic concession to heteronormative patriarchal capitalist the_west, why would i do that to what keeps my mind/body/emotions happy in the face of all that, "society" etc.

xp but just because you're "taken" doesn't mean we can't "expand the definition" of "taken"!

I'm having those problems as we speak, Matt...

Marriage is regressive yes but it's also aspired to by billions of people. It's only a problem when one highly-strung group of arseholes wants it to be an exclusive club.

hey al, i sent u a webmail.

Oh cool! Thanks, Matt.

eh no disrespect for 'civil union' proponents but i just want to say that economic and legal matters are at the core of the "traditional" form of marriage throughout history. lots of people focus on the romance & kids but at a fundamental level the history of marriage is primarily about building & consolidating wealth and ensuring legal protection. granted i understand that it also carries an ugly history of inequality and some distinctly modern ideas of romantic love & family.

to be honest, i don't quite understand why we need another parallel term for gay marriage when the word at hand is perfectly suited to describe a financial and legal partnership.

Agreed.

http://pileusblog.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/new-hampshire-bill-would-abolish-marriage-licensing/

I didn't see anything about this so far in this thread. I can't find the site where I originally read about this bill, but this story seems to be accurate, though a little obnoxious.

lol, the echoes of what we were talking about 6.5 years ago finally hit a state's legislature

hey a new legislative life for the Hidden Cameras' "Ban Marriage" as an anthem

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2011.04-profile-traditional-exports/

I had forgotten that since Canada got gay marriage we've been exporting our crazies down South. Somerville in particular is a piece of work. The fact that they're all faculty at my university is...troubling.

Minnesota Senate puts gay marriage ban on ballot, 38-27. All Republicans + one Democrat in the affirmative.

fuck. that.

Be interesting to see what the results will be, though. I would have predicted a slam-dunk victory for a ban over the past fifteen years, now I think it'll be much closer.

It will pass. Probably by a lot.

Basically do not expect people voting on other people's civic rights to ever do the right thing, because there is always an implicit assumption that they are giving up something and fuck that, this is America

i'd like to think that yr avg minnesotan voter wouldn't vote yes on this but yeah DJP otm, ppl are stupid

Agree with DJP, tho political experts seem to think that ballot initiatives face an uphill battle during presidential elections, when many voters presumably just tick off votes in the Big Show?

In any case, when it comes to gay marriage, it's somehow a lot harder to get people passively OK with the concept out to vote than it is to get masses of those actively against it.

Awright, so you guys can't marry me in Minnesota. Let's go someplace else. Drinks are on me.

I'd appreciate a sublet on about 14 months.

in

Basically do not expect people voting on other people's civic rights to ever do the right thing, because there is always an implicit assumption that they are giving up something and fuck that, this is America

― Dreaded Burrito Gang (DJP), Wednesday, May 11, 2011 1:42 PM Bookmark

Voters in Washington did the right thing and passed the "everything-but-marriage" civil union referendum. Maybe people are just better here. Go us!

let's all meet in Delaware

Voters in Washington did the right thing and passed the "everything-but-marriage" civil union referendum. Maybe people are just better here. Go us!

There is a difference between "let's vote to create something separate-but-'equal'" and "let's vote to say these different types of relationships should be treated the same way".

if you are a bigot tick this box: [ ]

Ugh, disappointed by my state! Except for guy in the clip above.

who is that person and did i vote for them

He's Steve Simon, the state Rep for Hopkins/St. Louis Park. So... no.

^^^Just checked, and he's the rep for my mom's side of town. YAY.

A majority of Americans favor legal gay marriage, sez Gallup.

I'm ready, guys!

op-ed in the times today urging gays to decline straight friends' wedding invites:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/opinion/22benjamin.html?_r=1

Giving serious consideration to that already.

Of course that's letting the enemies force me to hurt my friends. Which just seems like the absolute worst thing to do.

Seems odd on one hand to tout marriage as primarily a personal (not political) thing and on the other to boycott friends' marriages for political reasons.

Also, plenty of vegans go to pig roasts, if they're friends with the people holding the pig roast. (They just bring along not-dogs or eat beforehand.)