Quite rightly. After all, if you ever had me you’d never want a woman again. 
(If I turn you straight, do I win an untoaster?)
So it’s not just homophobic little me then? Oy, if two people want to have PV intercourse and call it lesbian sex then who am I to quote Lincoln’s riddle about a dog’s legs? I just filed it under 
and let it be.
No, you get a fork and a match.
…it ain’t just you. I mean, I guess it could be like the TG person just having a permanent strap-on, but… yeah. Whatever rocks it for ya.
We’ve hijacked the piss out of this thread.
We have rather. Plus I get to hone my flirting-with-lesbians skills, which is about as utilitarian as learning to water plastic flowers, but is oddly fun. 
Shall we give 'em their thread back now?
I have an older cousin who had come to live with us at the time the law changed. She was grandfathered in and was still allowed to legally drink. I had assumed that this would be the same in all the states. I guess not.
Just to continue one of the many hijacks going on here, When I was in New Orleans in '95-'96ish I remember the drinking age was 18 at the time. In fact there was some debate over the current drinking age from the locals at the bar:
local1:“What is now, 18?”
local2:“Yeah they changed it back again”
local1:“They change it so often, heck I can’t keep up”
From that I gathered that the drinking age was not controlled by the fed (or at least not entirely).
I don’t think there was an age minimum to imbibe alcohol put in the Constitution, so it should be controlled at the state level. Big surprise that the federal government decided to get involved (now’s when one of the SDMB legal eagles come in to tell me how wrong I am on this account).
It’s not. However, the federal government blackmailed the states with the National Drinking Age Act. States are free to set whatever drinking age they want, but if they don’t set it at 21 (or higher) they lose their federal highway funds.
Right. But they’re (theoretically, presuming they got married in Canada) still married. They have that piece of paper from the government, those copies of their joint tax returns from last year. Just because Virginia won’t recognize their marriage doesn’t mean they should start saying they aren’t married as soon as they cross the border, imo. It would be the same thing if some rich guy with four wives from Saudi Arabia made a visit - it would be a lot more disingenuous for him to say wives Two, Three, and Four are NOT his wives than to say that they are, no matter what the commonwealth of Virginia officially thinks.
Just to let you know… equating same-sex relationships with bestiality, even if you didn’t really mean it that way, is a good way to make gay people very, very angry at you.
That’s OK. Confusing a reductio ad absurdum with “equating same-sex relationships with bestiality”, even if you didn’t really mean it that way, is a good way to make people who understand logic very, very angry at you.
What does Virginia, and the States generally, consider official policy w.r.t. Saudi polygamites (other than “They have an awful lot of oil, and it’s best not to piss them off”, which I believe is how we generally look on it over here).
:rolleyes:
Look, I understood what you were saying and I actually agree with it - people shouldn’t be able to get around marriage laws in one state or country just by going to another. That opens the door to all sorts of bad things. And no, “equating” was not a good word to use, “comparing” would probably have been better. But comparisons to bestiality are often a sore spot for gay people. It’s like if, while debating Israeli human rights policies with a Jew, you started making comparisons to Hitler and Nazi Germany. (Godwin’s Law! Hee!:D) Bestiality is just, in my experience, more likely to cause unproductive anger than other comparisons… e.g., going to Pago Pago to marry one’s inflatable love doll.
AFAIK, the marriage to the first wife is legally recognized, while the others aren’t. But don’t quote me on that.
So all your pissing and moaning about how LA “knew damn well” what the bitch’s wedding ring signified, and that it was a “shitty thing to do” and was “disrespecting their marriage” and Maureen didn’t know what she was talking about because she’s “never had her marriage disrespected.” You’re trying to say that none of that was an accusation of homophobia and couldn’t be seen as such.
And I’m the one lying in this thread?
Darn. I come back to this thread after an unavoidable delay, and elfbabe’s being all reasonable and generally better-mannered than me. Okay, point taken.
I think if I wanted to contract a valid polygamous marriage and have it respected, it’d behoove me to clear off to Saudi (or Ouagadougou or Borneo or wherever) and live according to the culture of the people there - not just nip off, contract a marriage according to the terms that pleased me, and expect it to be honoured when I came back home.
We may shift on this over time. We may yet say “Fine, we don’t allow such-and-such a marriage to be contracted here, but if it was contracted elsewhere and nobody naysaid it, then we’ll respect it here”. We may even get around to saying “It’s no business of ours whom you marry. An it hurt no-one, do as you will”. The point is, we don’t at the moment - and expecting an unlawful marriage to be respected just 'cos it was solemnised somewhere where it was lawful is either disingenuous or outright dishonest. Whether we pay lip-service to a temporary visitor’s marriage is probably nothing to the point, except to illustrate that life is full of odd little inconsistencies.
Phew. Flirting with chatelaine was more fun 
Yes, in the United States* according to the constitution we have a “full faith and credit clause” which stipulates:
Now whether DOMA would nix the dykes in the OP’s marriage in VA is a matter for the courts (and it’s presumable to think that DOMA would be ruled unconstitutional).
*Yes, I understand that you were talking about global recognizations, but since the OP tangentially dealt with the FF&C, I thought I’d help muddy the waters.
To be fair, I don’t think the wicked witch’s faux pas was in claiming that her girltoy should get into the club because they were married. True, that claim is doubly irrelevant (both because SSM is not recognized in Virginia and because marriage doesn’t get your underage ass into a Virginia bar), but I don’t expect random schmoes to be legal experts, or even legal literates. If, on being informed that the marriage didn’t qualify Mrs. Cradlerobber to bring her diminutive damsel into the bar, she’d politely acquiesced, there would’ve been no harm, no foul.
Ignorance ain’t a problem. Surliness, unsupported accusations, and general creepy meanness are.
Daniel
Well, obviously you’re taking it as an accusation of homophobia, but that’s your damage, not mine.
So which is worse: Having a lady call you a homophobic fucktard (as in the OP), or having a homophobic fucktard call you a lady?
You’ll have to merge my brain and Lord Ashtar’s to find out–and I can run real fast.
Daniel
You give her way too much credit. She was ignorant too. The woman said she was the “legal guardian.” Anybody who doesn’t think that indicates a parental relationship raise their hands. Anyone? Anyone? She was like faye dunaway in chinatown. “She’s my daughter. She’s my wife. She’s my daughter *and * my wife.” Then she was too stupid to see how she’d caused the confusion to begin with.
**Lord Ashtar’s ** mistake was not that he was insensitive to gay marriage. His mistake was that he was insensitive to stupidity. He should have picked up on the fact that he was dealing with an ignoramus from the getgo. If you work with the public it’s your responsibility to sense and react appropriately to stupidity.
As soon as the woman said she’s a legal guardian and pointed to her wedding ring at the same time he should have said - “Ah. In front of me is a moron. It’s my job to guide the moron so that she understands.”
Regardless of your state, IMHO it’s thoroughly homophobic to not recognize gay marriage socially. In a legal setting there are different issues, but anyone who says “no you’re not married in my state” just to make a point is a homophobic ass. The laws are bigoted, and rubbing them in is a bigoted thing to do. If an antebellum Southerner said to a black man “well in my state you’re a slave and just 2/3 of a person” that would surely be seen as bigoted except in an extremely limited number of scenarios (like a lawyer explaining the legal status, etc.) IMHO you appeal to immoral laws at your moral peril.
If the legal status of her marriage had been relevant, the appropriate thing to do would be to say “legally I’m not allowed to let you in.” Or something like that. To say you’re not really married here would be dickish.
Okaaaaaayyyy…
So help me out. I want to understand. How does the whole “disrespecting her marriage” come into play?
Had she had a 20 year old man in tow, or had it been a 45 year old man with a 20 year old wife, and the same thing had happened, it would also be disrespectful. Look at some of the comments in this thread attacking the woman for daring to have a spouse half her age. That it was a same-sex couple, when same-sex relationships are routinely dismissed, adds another dimension to it but regardless of the sex or sexuality of the parties it’s disrespectful.