How did gay marriage (or lack thereof) affect you personally?

[Dr. Drake]

Reading the coverage of NY (Hooray!), I was wondering how gay marriage has affected individuals, either positively or negatively.

I think a lot of people here know what lack of access to federally-recognized marriage meant for me: my British partner had to find another legal way to get a visa to live in the US, which was expensive and stressful, and after about 4 years we called it quits and left forever. When gay marriage was briefly legal in CA, our attorney advised us NOT to marry, because it could have compromised Mr. Mallard's immigration status (federal again).

On the other hand, there was no federal problem being CA domestic partners, and my employer (ultimately the State of CA) provided us both with health insurance, which he would not have otherwise had, and the certificate was a key part of the proof of relationship we needed to get him into Canada. Or me into Britain, if we had gone that route.

[YaraMateo]

I have many gay and lesbian friends. One of my friends is very active in the GLBT community. So, proud day for us. The only negative thing is with this, he'll probably get married before I do. ;)

[WhyNot]

I get to share in the happiness of a bunch of friends (some gay, some straight, many Other) whenever another state brings about gay marriage.

I'm going to busy in a couple of states (IL and NY) performing marriages for people I couldn't do it for before! I don't charge, so it's not a financial boon, but it's going be sweet to put the first same-gendered couple in my official logbook. ;)

And, more personally, I'm considering Civil Unioning my SO, instead of marrying him, just to make a point. Let my idiot uncle stumble over explaining to his friends how his niece isn't "really" married, but she is, but...maybe he'll get over it. Maybe we'll all get over it.

[aruvqan]

Me personally, not at all. I am thrilled for everybody else that can now get married though.

[pbbth]

I have gay friends that can get married now, which is awesome. I also, as a resident of NY, will benefit immensely from all of the money that will be poured into the economy here from the increased number of weddings, marriage licenses, etc.

[Markxxx]

I am gay and I can't get a date, much less get married so it doesn't effect me in the least.

And as a gay person, I can tell you there are far more pressing issues that need to be dealt with first.

So why the fuss? Well first of all it's do-able. It's better to work on a goal you can succeed at, than ones you'll fail.

But mostly, at least for me, it's about being put into a tier as "second class."

It's like in IL they won't let gays get married but we can have a civil union. OK so you told me I don't count. I'm second class.

It's like telling Rosa Parks, "Just sit in the back, what's the fuss, it gets there the same time as the front does."

And that is true. Why should it matter if you make blacks sit in the back, if the result is the same? Because it's saying, blacks are second class. They don't count for as much as whites.

This is what gay marriage is about, at this stage anyway.

[Martin Hyde]

It doesn't affect me whatsoever either way.

I think marriage is a religious or social ritual (depending on the participants) and any reasons governments have historically had for recognizing it are outdated. I do not think marriage licenses should exist nor do I think governments should in any way recognize or regulate marriages. There should also be zero financial, tax, regulatory, benefit or etc benefits of being married. You should be free to claim any one person as a "partner" that you wish on any sort of program or form (life insurance, health insurance, retirement plan etc), but you should not be required to have a license from the state recognizing some special level of relationship with that person.

As a matter of being convenient I would also say you should be allowed to, whenever you get your driver's license renewed or at any other time you wish to do the paper work put someone down as your "Primary Beneficiary" (it will only require their SSN or Tax ID number) and by default if you die they will be the primary beneficiaries for any thing that you haven't covered in a will or haven't specifically directed to someone else. For example if you have a company 401k you never bothered to fill out beneficiary information for, or if you held shares in a mutual fund or etc, then the primary beneficiary would inherit those tax-free just like a spouse would under the current system.

The key difference is this relationship can be dissolved by you at any time. If you are someone's primary beneficiary they can likewise dissolve that at any time. There are no government licenses or approvals and no court required to dissolve the arrangement.

No assets should be viewed as "joint" assets unless clearly spelled out as such when they are purchased. There should be an end to the "two-person" corporate personhood of married couples.

[Dr. Drake]

Martin Hyde, what about immigration? Currently, man/woman married couples can apply for a spousal visa. Under your proposal, nobody could (or else everybody could).

We haven't gotten married up here, though we're officially married by common law. I filed my US taxes "single" and my Canadian taxes "common-law," which is official here and fiscally the same as "married."

[DMark]

My SO and I have been together for almost 31 years now, and the most we can get here in Nevada is a Domestic Partners document. Better than nothing - at least if something happens to one of us, the other can go to the hospital, or inherit the house. However, this most certainly is a ticket for the back of the bus - way, way in back of that bus.

My personal "read" on this issue is the problem with the term "marriage".

I would be quite fine with any other term, but allowing us the exact same rights. We personally have no need or desire to do the official standing at the altar, wedding cake and all that stuff. I seriously think many heteros and religious fanatics who are against Gay marriage are most concerned that their lovely wedding ceremonies will somehow be "cheapened" if two people of the same sex go through that ceremony. Fine. Let us have a rave, or beer bust, or costume party, or conga line on the beach - I don't care - but just give the same rights for us to be together and not have to keep jumping through legal hoops.

I am also amazed at those holier-than-thous who complain most about ruining the sanctity of marriage have been married and divorced multiple times. My younger brother (the idiot of the family) has been divorced eight times! Yet, he can run out and re-marry any bimbo he wants and have clergy lining up to perform the next blessed, holy, religious, morally correct ceremony. And you wonder why I am in no hurry to order that wedding cake....just give us the 100% legal rights that go along with marriage, and you can keep the stupid ceremonial rites for your churches.

[WhyNot]

I would be quite fine with any other term, but allowing us the exact same rights.


Tell me more about this. Are the rights which married people have that your Domestic Partnership documents don't give you two? 'Cause "separate but equal" is bad enough (it's never REALLY equal), but separate and unequal just blows, and is wrong, and is why partly I'm thinking of sitting in the back of the bus with y'all. (Sorry if that comes off as patronizing, it's really not meant to be; I just can't stand the idea of people I love not having the rights I do because of who they love. It's stupid, and if they can't get married, I'm not sure I want to. :( )

[RealityChuck]

No affect on me, which I think is true of the vast majority of non-gay Americans. I have some gay friends and they may take advantage, but I'm not close enough to them to be invited to any weddings.

[DMark]

Tell me more about this. Are the rights which married people have that your Domestic Partnership documents don't give you two? 'Cause "separate but equal" is bad enough (it's never REALLY equal), but separate and unequal just blows, and is wrong, and is why partly I'm thinking of sitting in the back of the bus with y'all. (Sorry if that comes off as patronizing, it's really not meant to be; I just can't stand the idea of people I love not having the rights I do because of who they love. It's stupid, and if they can't get married, I'm not sure I want to. :( )

Here is a great link (http://www.hrc.org/issues/legal-documents-for-families.htm) to other documents people might need. Plus, look through this site and you will see quite a few other differences, including the immigration laws mentioned in the OP, as well as child custody, etc.

[WhyNot]

Here is a great link (http://www.hrc.org/issues/legal-documents-for-families.htm) to other documents people might need. Plus, look through this site and you will see quite a few other differences, including the immigration laws mentioned in the OP, as well as child custody, etc.

Thank you.

[SCSimmons]

I'm told that it's going to wreck my heterosexual marriage. I'm not clear on how, but I'm living in fear every day as the scourge spreads. ;)

[Lasciel]

Personally? Not much impact at all, except that I get to be a slight little bit less totally embarrassed by my country every time a state passes an equal-access marriage bill.

It sucks that I'll be living in SC my whole life, because I just know we're going to be dragging in the rear as always. There's always Alabama to suck worse than us, but it's a close call for this particular issue.

I just don't understand people sometimes.

[Der Trihs]

How did gay marriage (or lack thereof) affect you personally?The debate over it probably hasn't been good for my blood pressure, but that's about it.

[Sampiro]

It sucks that I'll be living in SC my whole life, because I just know we're going to be dragging in the rear as always. There's always Alabama to suck worse than us, but it's a close call for this particular issue.

As an Alabamian I resent the accuracy of that statement. Though SC does sometimes beat us in the "more embarrassing media representation through elected officials" department.

And confirmed bachelor Lindsey Graham's queerer-than-a-four-legged-duck voice bashing gay marriage or homosexuality in general always makes me hear "That's what I like about the south (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGsz7kJR9U0)" being plucked on a banjo.

[Silvorange]

It only affects me indirectly. My sister and her ladyfriend can't get married in our home state of Kentucky. They will probably have a wedding ceremony here and then go on a honeymoon to a more enlightened state to make it official on paper.

I have to admit that I was much less concerned about the issue before my sister started dating someone that I wanted to see join the family.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Doesn't affect me at all. My boss is gay, but isn't likely to get married anytime soon (and we live in Florida, which will probably be among the later states to get this done).

It does make me happy that it was legalized in New York, though.

[guestchaz]

<snip>

And as a gay person, I can tell you there are far more pressing issues that need to be dealt with first.

So why the fuss? Well first of all it's do-able. It's better to work on a goal you can succeed at, than ones you'll fail.

But mostly, at least for me, it's about being put into a tier as "second class."

It's like in IL they won't let gays get married but we can have a civil union. OK so you told me I don't count. I'm second class.

<snip snip>

This is what gay marriage is about, at this stage anyway.

yeah this, if gay or lesbian couple wanna get married let them. Call it what it is Marriage, not "civil union":rolleyes: sheesh they're just people after all.

[guestchaz]

realized I didn't actually answer the OP, and had already missed the edit window.no affect on me at this time, but guest jr's godfather is gay, so who knows what the future will bring

[Martin Hyde]

Martin Hyde, what about immigration? Currently, man/woman married couples can apply for a spousal visa. Under your proposal, nobody could (or else everybody could).

We haven't gotten married up here, though we're officially married by common law. I filed my US taxes "single" and my Canadian taxes "common-law," which is official here and fiscally the same as "married."

There are many such situations, and an army of bureaucrats we pay to hash out all the details. For immigration it would essentially be that you could apply with yourself + 1 other adult who you designate as a domestic partner, plus any dependent children of you or that partner.

That's for an entire family trying to immigrate together.

For a single person who has U.S. citizenship wanting their significant other to be allowed to move here, I would be in favor of actual liberalization of the immigration law. The U.S. citizen just needs to claim the person as someone who they have a committed relationship with (again, the bureaucrats can come up with more universal terminology) and just like now a person from ICE can interview the couple to make sure it isn't fraudulent.

In my world in which such a relationship is not binding in any way and can be severed at any time (and in fact the government would quite possibly not find out for years), I would just say the stipulation should be no U.S. citizen can bring in more than one person every 10 years through the above method. That way we don't have "legalized coyotes" claiming they are in a relationship with someone every three months to game the system.

[Dr. Drake]

In my world in which such a relationship is not binding in any way and can be severed at any time (and in fact the government would quite possibly not find out for years), I would just say the stipulation should be no U.S. citizen can bring in more than one person every 10 years through the above method. That way we don't have "legalized coyotes" claiming they are in a relationship with someone every three months to game the system.Thanks. The way Canada does it, I'm financially responsible for Mr. Mallard for three years, even if we break up during that time. I think they also have limits on how often you can sponsor—at least, there was a question on the form asking if you'd sponsored other people. He doesn't have any obligations to me, but if he leaves the country without me for too long he can lose status here.

[etv78]

A few more of my Facebook "friends" will be able to get married. Other than that, not much.

[gotpasswords]

It's left me in a shadowy and weird "Am I or am I not" world.

We're one of the 18,000 or so "interim" California marriages from 2008. That's bad enough, but now we're in North Carolina. As far as CA goes, we're still married, but not here. Fortunately, people in the city of Charlotte are mostly able to grasp the idea of two men being married without speaking in tongues.

[SciFiSam]

Well, I'm gay, but have no desire to get married, so the main way it's affected me is many more invites to weddings and a few binatonial-couple friends living here rather than in other countries (inc. the US) because they're not allowed to live in the other country together.

Ours is called vicil partnership rather than marriage too, but for the sake of those binational friends and a couple of older people I know (who benefited in huge ways), I'm glad it went this way; if the politicians had pushed for it to be called 'marriage' the bill probably wouldn't have passed even now.

[Farmer Jane]

I'm just very happy to not be dating a girl.

She'd probably expect me to marry her.

;)

[irishgirl]

We've had to buy more wedding presents.

That's pretty much it.

At this point there have been 4 civil unions in our extended circle of friends and acquaintances.

Memorably, when one of irishfella's work colleagues got married, both of the guys come from large Catholic families (one has 9 siblings, one has 7) and there were over 100 guests just counting parents, siblings, in-laws, nieces and nephews. I think it ended up being about 400 guests total...which is crazy, but fabulous. If that isn't an affirmation of the validity of your relationship, I'm not sure what is.

[EvilTOJ]

Doesn't affect me one whit, as it should be.

[LouisB]

Does not affect me, never has and never will.

[Napier]

It has substantially tainted my (hetero) marriage that gay people aren't allowed to marry here. It's like realizing that the hometown you have always loved excludes nonwhites. My marriage of 23 years is tainted, and there is no perfect way of fixing it. I'm considering getting a civil union, but that feels like it is only a gesture, and not substantial.

I didn't mean to be one of the cruel people, and somehow it turns out that I am.

[Lightnin']

I might get invited to more weddings in the future, which means I'll have to buy more presents. That's about it.

[panache45]

My partner and I met in NYC and lived together there before relocating. He was born and raised there, and I lived there for 25 years. We expect to be invited to a few ceremonies in the near future. But here in Ohio it's a whole different story, and we'd rather work toward equality of marriage here than go somewhere else for the ceremony.

But in many ways we will always consider ourselves New Yorkers, and are just brimming with pride and joy these days.

[Sunspace]

It meant my cousin could get married and be happy, which made me a smidge happier too. :)

[Chronos]

It doesn't affect me directly at all, since I'm straight, and so far as I know, I don't personally know any gay couples who would wish to marry.

It doesn't effect me directly, but it does affect me indirectly. No man is an island, and it's a small step from prohibiting gay marriage to prohibiting straight marriage, or many other possible civil rights violations which would affect me or people I know directly. So I rejoice to see some parts of the country, at least, stepping away from the brink of that slippery slope.

[Dangerosa]

Until gay marriage is legal in the U.S., my minister won't marry anyone. Fortunately, my kids are still young, 11 and 12 - so I figure I have at least a decade to solve the issue. ;)

[ZipperJJ]

It doesn't affect me directly, I'm straight (and can't find anyone to marry me anyway).

I do have some gay friends but they are Ohioans who can't get married here yet anyway.

Same-sex marriage not being legal in most of the states in the US makes me feel sick and sad about Americans, though. Whenever I hear of it passing in other states I just feel ... "ugh, I can't believe this had to be an issue at all."

Good on you, NY, tho.

[Gleena]

It means my gay friends who have UK passports get married (or civil unioned anyway) at the British Embassy or the Consulate here in Sydney. I went to one such wedding just a few weeks ago, and it was amazing. Not just because it was a wedding between two guys, but because it was a wedding of two people who love each other so much it shows through every thing they do.

It means I am ashamed Australia can't get with the program and offer gay marriage here.

[Ranchoth]

Gay marriage being banned in California actually set me back a few bucks...as I had to buy a voodoo doll, piece of carvable lead, and some goofer dust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goofer_dust) components to lay a collective curse on Prop 8 supporters, till the ban is lifted. (Not wishing for "death," for the record—just for them to lose their prosperity, for their arguments to be found invalid, for the few children they have before they are struck infertile to abandon their parents' culture and heritage, etc...)

Since this was in early 2009, I think it might actually be working, too.:eek: :cool:

[Gyrate]

Now that gay people can marry in New York, my heterosexual marriage is a sham. It's more than a sham, it's a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.

Which is to say it hasn't affected me at all apart from making me glad that progress is being made.

[Rigamarole]

Meh.

[Lasciel]

As an Alabamian I resent the accuracy of that statement. Though SC does sometimes beat us in the "more embarrassing media representation through elected officials" department.

I think we manage to pass that particular baton back and forth a good deal. Humiliation loves company, perhaps?

And confirmed bachelor Lindsey Graham's queerer-than-a-four-legged-duck voice bashing gay marriage or homosexuality in general always makes me hear "That's what I like about the south (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGsz7kJR9U0)" being plucked on a banjo.

He knows my grandmother well and I've met him a few times while visiting with her in Columbia. I live for the day when he comes out of the closet.

[xoferew]

When the kids in my (New York City) preschool class would ask "Miss Xoferew, can a boy marry a boy? Can a girl marry a girl?" I used to say, "It depends where you live. Different places have different rules." Now I think I'll just say "Yes."

(No, you still can't marry your mommy, though!)

[panache45]

Until gay marriage is legal in the U.S., my minister won't marry anyone.

I have an acquaintance who's a church organist. He won't play for weddings until SSM is legal in this state. (At first he said "all the states," then realized it mean he'd never play for any weddings, ever.)

[Hari Seldon]

No effect at all. I know only one gay, AFAIK, and he has been a stable relationship for at least 25 years. They could have been married here in Quèbec for at least the last five years, but have chosen not to. On the other hand, half of all opposite sex couples (including an 82 yo colleague of mine) are not married, so why should gays be any different. (It is a matter of public record that less than 50% of all babies born here are to married couples.)

[Evil Captor]

I'm not affected by it at all, and can't imagine being affected by it. Any reasonable straight person should easily see that it makes no difference in their lives, but the religious types have been so heavily propagandizing against gay marriage that many straight people think dreadful things will happen if gay marriage is legalized. I have had several straight relatives turn entirely against gay marriage based entirely on religious propaganda, gayness has been entirely absent in their lives, for the most part. Talking to them about it is like talking to a brick wall. I can't stress this enough: your enemy is in the pulpits, they are doing their level best to make SSM illegal. If it were not for all the preists, clerics, etc., there would be no widespread opposition to gay marriage.

[Nava]

The one that comes to mind: it got Mom and a bunch of other classmate-moms to realize that this dude they'd always liked so much because he was so considerate and always so well-put-together was also gayer than a rainbow-colored feathered boa at the San Francisco Pride Parade. "DidyouhearyouroldclassmateOzziegotmarriedtoaman?" "Oh, that's nice!" "NICE?" "Well, it's not like his batting for the other team is exactly news for anybody who went to class with him, Mom..."

Funny thing is, I do believe it's what stopped her trying to push the sons and nephews of her friends on me. Mind you, there was a period when she also tried it with daughters, in case that happened to be what the problem was - she wants grandchildren from me so badly, I think she wouldn't mind if I got them from the sperm bank and unpartnered so long as I got them.

[Kalypso]

The lack of legal gay marriage in California has affected me a bit. I want to get married, in fact I have a wedding date scheduled for 11-11-11. I'm a girl, my partner is a guy, shouldn't be any problem right? It's a problem for me morally though. I feel like marriage in this state is somehow sullied. It's dirty and religious and conservative, and that's not want I want my marriage to be. I thought about having a domestic partnership instead, but California law doesn't allow it between young opposite gender folks.

I've talked to my officiant about it. He's a gay Buddhist monk, and he says that marriage is available to me, and I should enjoy the privilege and continue working as I already to to fight for marriage equality. I'll definitely be incorporating my views on the subject into the ceremony, and probably do something financial, like hold a money-dance and state that all the proceeds go to the HRC, or a like organization.

Still feel guilty though, like I'm selling out perhaps.

[WhyNot]

Still feel guilty though, like I'm selling out perhaps.

I hear ya.

[Dr. Drake]

Thanks for all the responses—this is enlightening and a little surprising. I'm pleased that the response is overwhelmingly neutral-to-positive, but given the intensity of the rhetoric I thought there'd be more stories of dramatic denial of benefits or maybe some window into why it's so important to exclude gays from legal marriage. So far, all I see is "a lot of people confuse legal marriage with holy matrimony."

I don't know what to think. This has dominated my life for the last 8 years, since my own UK visa expired. Most people never have to face "your country or your spouse," but I kind of wish I could wander around the evangelical churches and force people to choose. I can tell you that no matter what, your relationship with both suffers for your having made it. (We are doing fine, it's just been so much harder than I could ever have anticipated. And of course things are getting better all the time: lots of states and countries are offering benefits that weren't even dreamed of when I was growing up.)

[DMark]

...lots of states and countries are offering benefits that weren't even dreamed of when I was growing up.)

That is also the biggest problem. While it is nice that NY and other states are allowing Gay marriage or at least Domestic Partners/Unions, it doesn't really offer full equality. I know that, for instance, in Germany they let same sex marriages have full rights with regards to immigration, child custody and social security benefits.

If either I or my SO should die, the other would most likely have to immediately sell the house - we are not eligible for any pension or social security benefits that would allow one of us to keep up with all of the expenses on one income. If Mr. Jones dies, his wife gets a good chunk of his benefits to keep her going and maybe at least afford to live out her life in their home.

Until there is a FEDERAL law allowing all the full benefits, the changes currently being made state-by-state are a symbolic step in the right direction, but hardly full equality.

I did like a joke some comedian said, "if Nicole Kidman, Katie Holmes and Liza Minnelli can all legally marry Gay men, why can't I?"

[Dr. Drake]

Until there is a FEDERAL law allowing all the full benefits, the changes currently being made state-by-state are a symbolic step in the right direction, but hardly full equality.Amen. I spend a lot of time giving civics lessons. "Why couldn't you just get married in Vermont?" "Because immigration is a FEDERAL matter." But here in Canada we do have full equality, incuding adoption and protection from discrimination in the workplace. I hope America follows; I think it will eventually.

[HeyHomie]

At the moment, not at all. The only gay with whom I'm on a first-name basis is a self-proclaimed total slut and prefers drunken three-ways to monogamous relationships. If and when he ever settles down, I probably won't even get invited to the wedding. We're not that close.

[Napier]

Until gay marriage is legal in the U.S., my minister won't marry anyone. Fortunately, my kids are still young, 11 and 12 - so I figure I have at least a decade to solve the issue. ;)

Please tell your minister that some stranger on the internet both admires and appreciates his or her refusal.

[Ibanez]

I'm straight. It's been legal up here in Canada for some time. I don't get what all the fuss is about.
Our country didn't socially collapse when it became legal up here. If two people love each other why shouldn't they have the same rights and benefits as straight couples.

[Max the Immortal]

In the years that we've had same-sex marriage here in Canada, I have been affected in the following ways:
1) Two dudes I know got married within days of the legislation being passed.
2) I overheard a guy in the waiting room at an audition chatting with someone about how he and his now-husband moved to Canada to get married.
3) Hi, Opal!

[Infovore]

Personally and directly, not much (I'm straight). But I have a lot of gay friends (I'm in a LGBT WoW guild as well as having several gay and lesbian real-life friends), and I'm very happy that those among them who want to marry are able to.

The spouse, who's more religious than I am (that's not hard, since I'm not religious), is all hung up on the word "marriage." He has no objections to gay couples getting every right, privilege, and responsibility that hetero couples get (I've quizzed him heavily on this)--he just doesn't like it being called "marriage" because he claims that this is a religious concept. We've agreed to disagree on this.

Personally, I don't think the government should be in the "marriage" business at all, for gay or straight couples. The church can do whatever it wants (I don't have to like it, but they have a right to believe what they believe), but the thing that the government currently calls "marriage" should be renamed for everybody and offered equally to gay and straight couples alike. All are welcome to refer to themselves as "married" and to (if they wish) seek out a religious authority to put the religious spin on it (especially since there are churches that will marry gay couples for whom this is important). Just remove the term from civil usage. I know it's simplistic and I'm sure there are reasons it won't work, but it seems the best compromise to me.

[lindsaybluth]

My friends fall on two sides: one side wants a "traditional" life and marriage, consisting of adopting one or two kids when they're in their mid 30's and one person taking time off of work for awhile to "raise" them. They want seemingly all the trappings of married life that most people want and want to be considered equal citizens, if you will. They want to buy a house/apartment/condo, then get married, then have kids. For them, gay adoption rights are *very* important, just as important as marriage rights.

The other side strongly feels that marriage is not for gay people. They reason it should be *allowed* and legal but it absolutely does not nor will not affect their lives in the present or the future. Some of them say marriage is for straights and straights who want babies; they want none of it, especially not the babies.

I actually see it as polarizing the two groups. I don't so much understand the second group's feelings, since it should be a right they should have and want even if they choose not to exercise it. Perhaps because we're all young the second group will change their mind as they mature?

[Ura-Maru]

Well, now the women I ask out can be both married AND gay, whereas before it was either one or the other.

Aside from that, not too much. I know some married gay people now, which is not noticeably different from knowing married straight people.

Course, my town has been a gay mecca for decades. Even before it was legal, non-legally-binding ceremonies weren't uncommon, so I probably knew some we-know-it's-not-legally-binding-but-we-consider-ourselves-married before as well.

--
I'm exaggerating, of course. The last woman I asked out was no longer married to her wife by the time I'd met her. Still didn't go the way I was hoping it would.

[Geek Mecha]

The issue hasn't affected me much personally, though my circle has exploded with gay people in the last few years. I have two lesbian cousins and the people I most often interact with at work are gay. Two are legally married and many are in long-term relationships, and I'm happy for them all.

I am relieved for my cousins that it is much easier to come out now than it was five to 10 years ago. They have a lot of friends and live in fairly liberal cities, and although one of their mothers didn't take the news of her daughter's sexuality very well, it appears she got over it. One is married, one is in a long-term relationship. They both seem happy.

Mostly, I've just realized how bullshit this country's argument is about the sanctity of marriage. If we really felt this, we'd penalize the shit out of crimes within marriage and toughen our marriage and divorce laws. We'd limit the number of times and the circumstances under which you could marry. We'd make divorce much harder to obtain. After all, marriage is sacred. Abuse your spouse, or marry to commit fraud? We'd take those offenses much more seriously. But we don't, because it never was about the sanctity of marriage. It was about keeping the homos away.

[Little Nemo]

I feel Amber Heard was right on the verge of breaking down and marrying me but now the prospect of marriage with another women has given her new hope.

[BigT]

Nothing yet. The only people I know that want to get married are never going to get a chance, since one of them is dying. I do not believe it will come to Arkansas in time. Oh, and they are family.

Sorry to be a downer.

EDIT: And he can't be moved around enough to go somewhere else. Instead they just say they are married on Facebook, and the non homophobes in the family treat them as such.

[msmith537]

Yeah. It opens up a whole new annoying* category of wedings I have to go to.



*Annoying because I find wedings annoying. Not because gay people are annoying. They aren't. Well, some are. But no more than regular people. Not that gays aren't regular people too. You know what I mean.