11-15-2006, 07:07 AM
Yep, *spit*, welcome to the Old Domination, Macaca
Yep, it smacks its tobacco-chawin' lips of it. (Both our outgoing Senator and our Senator-elect, assuming recount holds up, spit the vile juice.)
I was disappointed that a majority of my fellow voters voted yes for Proposal 1. I think most of them knew that it defined marriage as "one man, one woman". (How do they enforce this? Will we do genital checks at weddings now??) Maybe a lot of them realized it prohibited "civil unions" the "benefits of marriage". But the wording of the proposal was "ANY contract between unmarried persons" that would (memory fails here) resemble marriage was prohibited. Now, if my wife and I divorce, can she move to deny joint custody of the kids because we are now "unmarried" and custody is a benefit of marriage?? Sheesh. What a stupid amendment.
If you really don't want "them" to have a monogamous relationship, enforce the sodomy laws and change their cellmates frequently.
I think the only area where the "gay marriage" issue really matters is in adoptions. Women can go to a special bank and have their own children. Gay men basically have to adopt, and, it seems, nobody wants them to. At least, not in this state.
I had grown weary of being Blue-Green in a Red state, but the canning of our formerly smug-little-smirk faux-cowboy from California has given me some hope.
-V
Quote:In sum, this is purely vindictive, and smacks of state-sponsored bigotry.
Yep, it smacks its tobacco-chawin' lips of it. (Both our outgoing Senator and our Senator-elect, assuming recount holds up, spit the vile juice.)
I was disappointed that a majority of my fellow voters voted yes for Proposal 1. I think most of them knew that it defined marriage as "one man, one woman". (How do they enforce this? Will we do genital checks at weddings now??) Maybe a lot of them realized it prohibited "civil unions" the "benefits of marriage". But the wording of the proposal was "ANY contract between unmarried persons" that would (memory fails here) resemble marriage was prohibited. Now, if my wife and I divorce, can she move to deny joint custody of the kids because we are now "unmarried" and custody is a benefit of marriage?? Sheesh. What a stupid amendment.
If you really don't want "them" to have a monogamous relationship, enforce the sodomy laws and change their cellmates frequently.
I think the only area where the "gay marriage" issue really matters is in adoptions. Women can go to a special bank and have their own children. Gay men basically have to adopt, and, it seems, nobody wants them to. At least, not in this state.
I had grown weary of being Blue-Green in a Red state, but the canning of our formerly smug-little-smirk faux-cowboy from California has given me some hope.
-V