From your keyboard to God’s ears …
On the plus side, I’ve seen 0 yes-on-8 ads, and the no-on-8 ad that I’ve seen MANY times is very well done… it features an old (hetero) couple with two children, one gay, one not, both of whom are married, and they are saying “keep marriage legal for ALL of us” or something like that. Very nonthreatening 
(I may have a few of the details wrong.)
Rhode Island appears to want to have it both ways.
That’s hot.
I believe Massachusetts doesn’t allow same-sex marriages by out of state residents. So does anyone know how this will work in Connecticut? Because the state could make some tourism money if people from other states can travel there to get married. (I know that California was hoping to make some money from such visitors.)
About 10 more states and SCOTUS will start seriously thinking about applying the 14th Amendment to gay marriage. That’s how these things happen historically.
With those 3 states (not counting others that offer separate-but-equal things like civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc., this is already 15.2% (1/6th) of the population of the USA. That’s a good start.
That was true until July 31st. Now it does.
ETA: My marriage is my cite!
Congratulations!! May you have a lifetime of happiness!
Best cite evar!!
Best wishes for a wonderful life together!
Thank you!
Truly awesome! (Both the marriage and the wit!)
I don’t get this either, and it’s in every Yes-on-8 ad they show on tv here. Since when is marriage taught about in any way in school?
They also say that Massachusetts schools had to teach that boys can marry boys, and that parents had no right to object.
Yeah, it’s silly. Object to what? The schools pointing out the facts of the matter as they currently stood?
Sometimes, in some states at least, Social Studies or Health classes touch on it.
In Texas, in 2004, political pressure from the Texas Board of Education on publishers prompted the publishers to “voluntarily” edit high school health books so that they define marriage the same way Texas law now does, i.e., a “lifelong union between a husband and a wife.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/national/06texts.htm
Even if they mention it in textbooks or classes, then, still, nobody’s actually telling the students that when they grow up, they have to marry a same-sex partner.
Apparently, though, people object to having their kids hear about it at all even though it exists and they would very likely find out about it anyway. Goodness knows, they’d have heard it on the TV by now.
Go NY! 
“Lifelong”? Ha!
Here in the Minnesota Legislature, the Republicans were going to push an anti-gay state Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as being between “one man and one woman”. Democratic leadership derailed that by informing them that they would move to add the words “for life” to the end of that amendment, and get the DFL legislators to vote for it. Then either the born-again republican legislators would have to vote against this, or else send to the voters a bill that would outlaw divorce in the state (which would almost certainly be defeated).
Are you assuming that the Santa Anas are only responsible for that whooshing sound?
I like that technique; if people want to define marriage along religious lines, make them REALLY define it along religious lines.