When my niece and her partner had a commitment ceremony, (no legal SSM here in Nebraska, yet), they both wore wedding gowns. It was great. Everybody had a lovely time, had a reception at a local hotel. It was just like a regular wedding in almost every way. Now they’re buying a house together. I think once people accept it more, it won’t be any big thing.
There would be one less topic to debate for 20+ pages in GD.
Haven’t you been paying attention??
Everyone knows that allowing same-sex marriage will destroy hetero marriages. There will be no more sanctity of marriage at that point.
People will start wanting to marry their toasters, their pets and their siblings. If we allow ssm, we’ll have to allow polygamy, too.
We’ll have to start teaching all of the school kids to be gay.
Oh, it will be bad. Very, very bad.
/sarcasm off
I don’t his eyes are where he’s “pulling the wool.”*
*new euphemism for having sex with sheep! You heard it here first folks!
Gays will have less sex?
ETA: Same as straight married people.
You’re Armenian?
I agree. My wife and I hate each other as it is.
Our . . . toasters? Look everyone, I’m all for allowing gay marriage, but I just don’t think the world is ready for a gay man-household appliance union. I don’t care how much you love Mr. Black and Decker, maybe you should keep that forbidden love in the closet.
No . . . no. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I think they should be allowed to marry too, but . . . no.
I’d love to know at what point it catches on at the Federal level and same sex couples can file joint federal tax returns and import spouses from abroad.
And thus, with precedent set, once workable AI gets rolling, and we figure out a few power supply problems…the party can begin.
You thought God was angry now? Well let’s see how feels…when he’s left writhing in the dust, felled by his own obsolescence in the face of human SCIENCE! FORD BE PRAISED, BLESSED BE THE BOMB AND THE HOLY FALLOUT! I’M THE GOD NOW! I’M THE GOOOOOD!
Eh? Eh? How 'bout it?
Utah will secede, and join the “Axis of Evil.”
How did they work the throwing the garter bit? 
They threw like girls?
In Canada, equality in the area of spousal benefits preceded gay marriage. Almost all employer benefit plans in Canada had previously been extended to include opposite sex common law couples. When same-sex common law couples started applying for those benefits, the courts held that they were eligible, just like opposite-sex common law couples. Failure to include same-sex common law couples was held to be discriminatory, contrary to the various human rights laws. Nor was there any financial argument that employers could make - the expansion of their benefit plans to include opposite-sex common law couples were estimated to have increased their costs in the neighbourhood of 20%; including same-sex common law couples was estimated to be in the 0.5-1.5% range. Once they’d make the expansion to opposite-sex common law couples, same-sex couples were eventually included. That all happened in the 90s, long before the same-sex marriage cases began in 2003.
The comparable event in Canada was the same-sex marriage of two Mounties. Doesn’t seem to have caused any difficulties within the RCMP. That’s one of the virtues of hierarchical command structures - tell them the rules have changed, here’s the new rules, and they generally implement them.
We don’t yet have same sex ‘marriage’ in the UK, but we do have civil partnerships which have almost identical legal status, and are frequently referred to as gay marriage (gay couples will often say, for instance’ that they’re ‘getting married’ not ‘civilly partnered’).
The main changes are:
> Wedding venues (hotels etc) now advertise ‘have your wedding or civil partnership here’.
> Spousal benefits are extended to SS partners, and I have never heard any companies making a fuss about this (actually, many spousal benefits are already extended to unmarried couples in any case, and it is against the law to discriminate at work on the basis of sexual orientation).
> The military accepts it, but then we already have gays in the military
> Government/official forms have been adapted to include reference to civil partners as well as spouses
I think the most positive thing is that you see ‘civil partnership’ mentioned so often in the mainstream (such as on those forms and those wedding venue websites), so gay people have an increasingly public, accepted profile in society, rather than being some sub species that just hangs out in seedy Soho clubs.
The only thing that grates with me is that, without the full title of ‘marriage’, newspapers frequently insist on referring to someone’s civil partner as ‘husband/wife’ in inverted commas (e.g. David Furnish is Elton John’s ‘husband’). I think the inverted commas is demeaning, and suggests they’re just playing at marriage. Amongst many gay couples, using husband or wife to describe a partner is quite acceptable, and not said with any tongues in cheeks.
We didn’t throw anything. No garter and no bouquet as we didn’t have those to begin with.
The terrorists will target that state. After all bestiality is OK to them just not same gender sex.
I always suspected there was something going on between Vader and Tarkin…
Will dogs and cats be living together? I want to get a puppy, but I’m worried about how the cats will react. Should I wait until my state legalizes gay marriage to get a dog?
Prejudice is baa-a-a-a-a-ad, mmm-kay?
It wouldn’t bother me so much, but this sort of thing is still illegal where I am, and someone from Aintree squealed, so now I’m on the lamb.