Apparently, NZ's definition of marriage amendment bill is the first marriage equality law that has been passed with explicit provisions regarding gender identity and gender variance.
NZ is way cool.
Hey gang, I've been away from the site for a solid year or two, but I figured a special occasion made it worth posting the definite highlight of the final Marriage Equality debate:
It's been amazing over the last two years seeing people slowly shift from being uncomfortable, to not caring, to accepting tolerance as a majority belief.
One really has to wonder how a person with such blatant ignorance - shocking ignorance, in fact - was elected to office.
Iowa.
He sounds like an 8th grader delivering a book report.
Also, back the f*ck off the mic dude. It's almost like you want to put it in your mouth.
Phoenix Rev wrote:One really has to wonder how a person with such blatant ignorance - shocking ignorance, in fact - was elected to office.
Iowa.
True. But Iowa also elected this guy (1:55 in):
He's been an Iowa state senator since 1997 and is also openly gay.
Phoenix Rev wrote:One really has to wonder how a person with such blatant ignorance - shocking ignorance, in fact - was elected to office.
Iowa.
As an Iowan, this jackass is not representative of the state. Iowa is actually a fairly progressive state, and we do recognize same sex marriage. So no, "Iowa" is not the reason.
iaintgotnopants wrote:Phoenix Rev wrote:One really has to wonder how a person with such blatant ignorance - shocking ignorance, in fact - was elected to office.
Iowa.
True. But Iowa also elected this guy (1:55 in):
He's been an Iowa state senator since 1997 and is also openly gay.
Facts don't matter when it comes to mocking Iowa.
iaintgotnopants wrote:Phoenix Rev wrote:One really has to wonder how a person with such blatant ignorance - shocking ignorance, in fact - was elected to office.
Iowa.
As an Iowan, this jackass is not representative of the state. Iowa is actually a fairly progressive state, and we do recognize same sex marriage. So no, "Iowa" is not the reason.
I'm a former Iowan, and most of the state is quite progressive. I'm going to guess the area around Hancock (somewhere east of Omaha, I had to look it up) is perhaps not quite Iowa City, shall we say.
He sounds like an 8th grader delivering a book report.
Also, back the f*ck off the mic dude. It's almost like you want to put it in your mouth.
That's probably the underlying issue that he refuses to deal with.
Thanks for linking that response OG_Slinger, props to Senator McCoy.
derailing side question; what's the emotion of the woman in the background at 5:18? I can't tell if she wants to blurt out "bullsh*t!" or "thank you!", it looks kinda frowny and then she remembers/realizes she's on camera so forces a smile? Or maybe wants to smile but is trying to look neutral? Whatever it is I think that's the first time I've seen it.
Looks like as of April 18th gay sex is no longer a crime in Montana, that's a start I guess, an overly belated tiny start but a start.
Although
"This isn't over," says a Republican who opposed the measure. "We will see a continual push for recognition of unions ... for health insurance. All kinds of things will come out of this."Those dots... I do not think they have the connection you think they do... wtf
While I'm very glad Montana made that move proactively rather than being forced, I have to agree with that Republican homophobe. Admitting that the consummation of a relationship is not a criminal act goes a long way towards legitimizing the relationship. Recognition of the fact that both kinds of sex acts are equal under the law makes it easier to show that both relationships should be. Which leads to unions, marriage, and health care.
krev82 wrote:Looks like as of April 18th gay sex is no longer a crime in Montana, that's a start I guess, an overly belated tiny start but a start.
Although
"This isn't over," says a Republican who opposed the measure. "We will see a continual push for recognition of unions ... for health insurance. All kinds of things will come out of this."Those dots... I do not think they have the connection you think they do... wtf
While I'm very glad Montana made that move proactively rather than being forced, I have to agree with that Republican homophobe. Admitting that the consummation of a relationship is not a criminal act goes a long way towards legitimizing the relationship. Recognition of the fact that both kinds of sex acts are equal under the law makes it easier to show that both relationships should be. Which leads to unions, marriage, and health care.
Yeah, it's like the Scalia dissent in Lawrence--those opposed to gay rights with half a brain and the ability to be even somewhat honest with themselves realize the whole thing rests only on the ability to criminalize the associated sex act. Once they don't have that legal hook to hang their arguments on, you wind up with an opposition to gay rights that can't do better than the kind of circus we saw play out in the trial that kicked off this thread.
Looks like as of April 18th gay sex is no longer a crime in Montana, that's a start I guess, an overly belated tiny start but a start.
Although
"This isn't over," says a Republican who opposed the measure. "We will see a continual push for recognition of unions ... for health insurance. All kinds of things will come out of this."
Those dots... I do not think they have the connection you think they do... wtf
edit: After reading the responses below I realized I had read it as "recognition of unions AND health insurance" and took that to mean unions in the worker/employee union sense. Don't mind me.
It wasn't about enforcing the sodomy laws themselves, it's that the sodomy laws were the legal foundation for all the *other* denials of equal rights for homosexuals. Scalia's dissent in Lawrence is basically our arguments now for why there's no constitutional reason to prevent people from entering into same-sex marriage:
But “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples.
what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.
That makes me very happy as the extent and degree of public protest against marriage equality in France had me a bit concerned that their politicians might not go through with it, fingers crossed that it makes it all the way.
Sounds like a perfect day to have some marriage égalité fries with dinner.
Sounds like a perfect day to have some marriage égalité fries with dinner.
If it works, I'd encourage them to be called Marriage Freedom Fries, because that irony is just too....delicious.
Kudos to them for recognizing what they need to do to get reelected.
FTFY.
Hypatian wrote:Sounds like a perfect day to have some marriage égalité fries with dinner.
If it works, I'd encourage them to be called Marriage Freedom Fries, because that irony is just too....delicious.
This is one of those times I don't know if I should applaud you folks or stare in mute judgement.
SpacePPoliceman wrote:Hypatian wrote:Sounds like a perfect day to have some marriage égalité fries with dinner.
If it works, I'd encourage them to be called Marriage Freedom Fries, because that irony is just too....delicious.
This is one of those times I don't know if I should applaud you folks or stare in mute judgement.
Ketchup with the times, Bloo!
Those old folks are horny as hell.
Five more states in the process of jumping on the rainbow (happy elderly gay sex) train/parade:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/25/gay-marriage-states/2113593/
Go momentum go.
Hey.
Hey USA Today.
This is a discussion about gay marriage. Feel free to use other colors in the rainbow than 50 shades of blue.
via Blind_Evil in the NBA thread.
We now have our first openly gay American professional athlete in Jason Collins.
Pages