photos...

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » February 21, 2004, 2:14 am

Photos of gay marriages in San Francisco

Whatever your political lean, these are some touching photos...

Personally (and to paraphrase Voro), I fail to see how Bruce and Steve's marriage negatively affects or devalues my own impending nuptials.

edit> fixed link

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 21, 2004, 2:29 am

I get an image of an = sign. Kinda ironic actually.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » February 21, 2004, 2:46 am

Lalanae wrote:I get an image of an = sign. Kinda ironic actually.

Well, if they're standing face-to-face....

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » February 21, 2004, 2:59 am

Yipes! I copied the info for the wrong image! I fixed the link above - it should be correct, now.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 21, 2004, 3:07 am

Thanks! Those are some touching pictures and it makes me happy to see other people happy like that.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 21, 2004, 3:24 am

Civil Disobedience is good...

Civic Civil Disobedience is better...

A county south of Santa Fe, New Mexico is also now issuing same sex marriage liscenses...Apparently NM has no applicable same sex marriage law on the books...

a little revolution...

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » February 21, 2004, 3:42 am

Arborealus wrote:Civil Disobedience is good...

Civic Civil Disobedience is better...

A county south of Santa Fe, New Mexico is also now issuing same sex marriage liscenses...Apparently NM has no applicable same sex marriage law on the books...

a little revolution...

NM *was* doing it, then they were ordered to stop without judicial cause. New York also issued a few, as it would seem they, too, are without laws directly against it.

Shashonna · Post by **Shashonna** » February 21, 2004, 1:31 pm

I think its great. Its just marriage. Im married and I dont think it makes mine any less. To me marriage is 2 people who love each other forming a union, well they all look very much in love. I think the 1st pic of the lil old ladies is adorable. And the two guys with the babies how sweet

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 21, 2004, 2:20 pm

yea .. how does steve and billy change the fact that your married ... hint ..... it doesn't do anything to your marriage...

and those old ladies are soooo cute now thats love ... old people arn't the "i want you because your hot" ... they more look for love/companionship ... correct me if im wrong in my assumption tho

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » February 21, 2004, 3:27 pm

Well, that....and they've been together for 51 years. Somebody try and tell me that isn't commitment.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 21, 2004, 3:40 pm

Spokeswoman for the CA Attorney General wrote: "The governor cannot direct the attorney general," spokeswoman Hallye Jordan told the Times. "He can direct the highway patrol. He can direct 'Terminator 4'. But he can't tell the attorney general what to do. However, we are his lawyer, and we are moving as expeditiously -- with deliberation -- as possible.

from http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... enegger_dc

That's a memorable quote lol...

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 21, 2004, 4:30 pm

Arborealus wrote:
Spokeswoman for the CA Attorney General wrote: "The governor cannot direct the attorney general," spokeswoman Hallye Jordan told the Times. "He can direct the highway patrol. He can direct 'Terminator 4'. But he can't tell the attorney general what to do. However, we are his lawyer, and we are moving as expeditiously -- with deliberation -- as possible.
from http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... enegger_dc

That's a memorable quote lol...

In the words of the great Michael Kelso

BURN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » February 21, 2004, 4:39 pm

There is no reason why this should not be allowed. This is an example of an instance where the far right wields a lot of power and the majority of the right has to listen or be are in danger of having a Nader equivalent pop up because a percentage of the constituancy completely disagrees with your points.

Kind of a shame that it is going to be fought, but I have yet to hear a really good reason why gay marraiges should not be allowed. If anyone has a reason, I would be interested in hearing it. I am married, but not really familiar with what a legal marraige actually gets you in terms of status and tax rights.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » February 21, 2004, 9:18 pm

...but bush will fight to "defend a marrage between a man in a woman" cant you see?, those fucking faggots are trying to sabotosh heterosexuals!!! we must put an end to it!

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » February 22, 2004, 10:40 pm

For the record, John Kerry is just as much against gay marraiges as Bush is. . .oh well.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 23, 2004, 1:10 am

Not necessarily. Kerry does not support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Bush has dodged questions about it.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » February 23, 2004, 4:10 pm

John Edwards' stance is leave it to the states to decide, let the people of this country in each area make the decision. While that seems almost a novel concept in this day and age it IS what our country was founded on IMHO.

Marb

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 23, 2004, 4:33 pm

Marbus wrote:John Edwards' stance is leave it to the states to decide, let the people of this country in each area make the decision. While that seems almost a novel concept in this day and age it IS what our country was founded on IMHO.

Marb

I am pretty much inherently against a constitutional amendment either way fundamentally...This should so obviously not be any government's decision...But since some fools decided to legislate what is clearly a question of individual morality/ethics...

Our country was founded on individual rights...Including the right not to have a particular morality imposed on any individual by any government...

It is regrettable that this would require a national constitutional amendment...And I think (hope) the supreme court may yet intervene to tell the states to get their hands out of it by making it illegal to enforce such bans...

Barring a reasonable opinion by the supreme court this is gonna be a big honking shitstorm and I will be right in the middle of it trying to defend my right to my own sense of ethics not a legislated one...

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 23, 2004, 4:34 pm

Bush is backing a constitutional amendment banning it, he just hasn't announced it.

well i say he is backing the admendment. His senior advisors are backing the amendment (Rove, etc), so Bush will back the amendment when he is told to.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 23, 2004, 4:49 pm

Voronwë wrote:Bush is backing a constitutional amendment banning it, he just hasn't announced it.

well i say he is backing the admendment. His senior advisors are backing the amendment (Rove, etc), so Bush will back the amendment when he is told to.

It must be a political move. I can't imagine an amendment banning gay marriages actually passing.

If I was a shady politician, and 100% of them are, I'd back whatever got me the votes if I knew it had no chance of passing. He loses respect with me on this one though as he should be pushing to get rid of legal marriages and have the government only involved in civil unions. More americans are tolerant of civil unions. Bush could then declare that marriage is something you do only in a church or in EQ...both being fantasy settings with about equal significance to anyone other than the couple involved.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 23, 2004, 4:59 pm

Winnow wrote:More americans are tolerant of civil unions and then Bush could declare marriage something you do in a church or in EQ...both fantasy settings with about equal significance to anyone other than the couple involved.

ROFL!!!

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » February 23, 2004, 7:34 pm

A constitutional amendment has about as much chance of passing and getting rattified as Ralph Nader does becoming president.

Calling for a constitutional amendment is always a political move. The politician gets to look good for his constituents, while he knows in reality that it will never happen, so he never has to actually do anything. It is like free brownie points.

I would also like to point out, there has only ever been one amendment that the took away or limited personal freedom in our country. It is also the only amendment that has ever been repealed. So calling for an amendment to ban gay marriage, which would be another amendment limiting freedom, is just talk to impress the right wingers.

No time for spell checking and proof reading, so spare me any flames due to errors.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » February 24, 2004, 12:28 pm

if and when Bush is re-elected (bleh!), he will probably push for this amendment. He won't be fighting for votes in his second term and I guessing all sorts of nasty things will get passed. Hopefully the republicans won't retain control of the house and senate at the same time or that will make it even easier for Bush's agenda.

As others have said, I don't believe it is any of the governments business as to what a person does with their personal lives. Only when it starts to really affect society at large should it be looked in to. I have seen some very loving gay couples that put a lot of hetero relationships to shame. The divorce rate in this country is a bigger issue than gay marriage.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 24, 2004, 12:42 pm

yeah all this bullshit about the sanctity of marriage.

our divorce rate is like 55-60%, right?

anyway, i am happily married, i'd be shocked and disappointed if i ever ended up divorced. regardless, gay people doing whatever in their church or homes has no effect on my relationship with my wife. And it has no effect on the sanctity of marriage. If marriage is sacred and protected by God, let him dish out the punishment for those who would oppose him. I've read he's good at that.

Bush announcing right now that he supports a constitutional amendment

Shashonna · Post by **Shashonna** » February 24, 2004, 12:47 pm

Well its 10:41am est and my TV show was just interrupted by the President so he can say he wants to Ban gay marriages. Hes troubled by whats going on in San Fransisco .....oh please I hope he just screws himself by doing all this. What an idiot really. He wants to protect marriage, I didnt know it was in danger.......well if I was gay I sure wouldnt be voting from him come November! Of all the things to fix in the world he chooses gay marriage as an important one.....*sigh* I hope hes gone soon.

edit- Oh Im so shocked he didnt answer any questions bah He scared?

Deward · Post by **Deward** » February 24, 2004, 1:06 pm

Wow I must say I am shocked he would take on such a controversial topic less than 9 months from an election. This could really turn around and bite him in the ass.

Post by **Sylvus** » February 24, 2004, 1:34 pm

I don't think that gay people should have the right to be photographed.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 24, 2004, 1:37 pm

riddle me this batman

how is it that every single straight man (and some straight women) get turned on by watching women make out. BUT, probably half of the men out there are against lesbians getting married.

is it because Cinemax has filled our minds with lies about how hawt lesbos are IRL?

Post by **Sylvus** » February 24, 2004, 1:46 pm

Voronwë wrote:is it because Cinemax has filled our minds with lies about how hawt lesbos are IRL?

That has to be it. The lesbians really need to fire their PR person and hire Cinemax' programming director.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 24, 2004, 2:02 pm

My opinion about Bush's decision is that he really, really fucked up just now. He just gave Kerry his cunt number. Now all Kerry has to do is stfu about his stance for awhile and let Bush soak up all the negetive press. Everyone knows or is related to a homo. You cannot take a shit all over a loved one's rights and expect to be popular.

We are all witnessing something profound. This is history in the making on a country wide scale that has not been seen in several decades. I will remember these times for the rest of my life. As someone said above, I love a good revolution. This one happens to be placing my 2 least favorite groups in the spotlight and expossing them as ignorant/controlling fucksticks that they have always been - Religious Zealots and Politicians.

Good times are ahead for sure

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 24, 2004, 2:35 pm

religious zealots and politicians have been intermingled since the beginning of human language.

They were one and the same until the 1500s in Europe. Henry VIII unwittingly struck a blow for all humanity by removing the Church's influence from the government of England. He just wanted a divorce, but the end result was the beginning of something great for Western goverment.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 24, 2004, 3:00 pm

This is the 2000's. America loves gay people!

Bush needs to fire his campaign manager. If he believes strongly in it, then his second term is the perfect time to go nuts addressing controversial issues.

People rally behind a president during times of crisis. If a terrorist attack occurs right before the election, Bush will have an easier time of winning the election. Sad but true.

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » February 24, 2004, 3:16 pm

Voronwë wrote:yeah all this bullshit about the sanctity of marriage.

our divorce rate is like 55-60%, right?

My favorite quote on that subject at the moment comes from Bill Maher.

To paraphrase: "I have trouble beleiving that anything two people can do drunk in Vegas at 2:00 AM at a drive-thru chapel is 'sacred' and should be protected as such."

Post by **Sylvus** » February 24, 2004, 3:27 pm

You know, the more I think about it... it seems to me that divorce is more of an affront to marriage than gay people being able to get married. That bill should have a rider that says people can no longer get divorced, just to make it fair.

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » February 24, 2004, 4:00 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:My opinion about Bush's decision is that he really, really fucked up just now.

Actually, it goes back further than that.

When he was governor of Texas, Bush actually did a fairly admirable job. Education was stabilized here, with no immediate financial crises (something that the two gov's before him and the one since can't boast), and - believe it or not - he actually was something of a "uniter, not a divider." He fought to curb the extremes of both parties, and demonstrated himself (at least on the state level) to be something of a centrist, and he didn't spend like it was going out of style.

I still didn't care for him much (he had to follow Gov. Richards, who was just a total character), but he wasn't the man that's in the White House by a long shot, as a good number of Texas republicans will tell you. He changed a lot.

The current situation all started during his first campaign. Bush is a winner...he has to win once he's in a competition. He saw his father's alienation of his political base as the reason for his failed re-election bid, and he wasn't going to repeat the same mistake.

W.'s mistake came when he extended his hand to the religious right during his first run. Once you're in bed with them, you are forever dependent.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 24, 2004, 4:22 pm

Winnow wrote:This is the 2000's. America loves gay people!

Bush needs to fire his campaign manager. If he believes strongly in it, then his second term is the perfect time to go nuts addressing controversial issues.

People rally behind a president during times of crisis. If a terrorist attack occurs right before the election, Bush will have an easier time of winning the election. Sad but true.

But you're still voting for him huh?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 24, 2004, 4:30 pm

Arundel Pajo wrote:
W.'s mistake came when he extended his hand to the religious right during his first run. Once you're in bed with them, you are forever dependent.

It's hard to call it a mistake when he won by so few votes. His choice was probably to suck up to the extremists or not be president. Bush may as well use the religious right to his advantage as they're useless for anything other than a vote. Bush or his advisors may be smarter than you think. The far right religious freaks are jumping for joy with the announcemnt of his support to ban same sex marriages, the more moderate Bush supporters may be pissed but are smart enough to know that the amendment won't pass and still vote for Bush. Turmoil in the senate and congress will prevent the bill from passing and Bush returns for term two!

Reagan
Reagan
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Bush
Bush

Lalanae wrote:
Winnow wrote:This is the 2000's. America loves gay people!

Bush needs to fire his campaign manager. If he believes strongly in it, then his second term is the perfect time to go nuts addressing controversial issues.

People rally behind a president during times of crisis. If a terrorist attack occurs right before the election, Bush will have an easier time of winning the election. Sad but true.
But you're still voting for him huh?

Not necessarily. I'm just providing insight as to why or how he might win. I'm undecided. I will weigh all the issues and factors from both sides in my final decision.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 24, 2004, 4:32 pm

edit: condensed post.

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » February 24, 2004, 4:39 pm

I dunno, Winnow - I think ethically, I can still call it a mistake. At least to me, anyway.

I mean, if I'm running for president, and it's a pretty sure thing that I'm gonna lose unless I hop in bed with, say, the National Socialist party... I think I'd take my loss like a man rather than pander to a voter base whose views I don't neccessarily espouse, and whose demands grow louder the more you give them.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 24, 2004, 4:40 pm

Winnow wrote:edit: condensed post.

spatial conservativE!!!!!!1111!!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 24, 2004, 4:49 pm

Lalanae wrote:
Winnow wrote:edit: condensed post.
spatial conservativE!!!!!!1111!!

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » February 24, 2004, 10:29 pm

heh, Just realized that I know one of the couples in the pic 9 up from the bottom from Austin. They said that they had to actually wait outside overnight and most of the next day before they could get in (hence the sleeping bags, etc.). They said that it was the most miserable yet the best moment in their lives. Sad that some people can't understand that sex doesn't = more than 5% of a lifelong relationship.

Asheran Mojomaster · February 25, 2004, 1:47 am

[quote="Fairweather Pure"]My opinion about Bush's decision is that he really, really fucked up just now. He just gave Kerry his cunt number. Now all Kerry has to do is stfu about his stance for awhile and let Bush soak up all the negetive press. Everyone knows or is related to a homo. You cannot take a shit all over a loved one's rights and expect to be popular.
[quote]

Yep, I think this is what is gonna get him. I know like 10 gay people that go to my school (well gay or bi), and I have a 2nd cousin who is gay. I mean, I have hated Bush for a long time, so I would never vote for him regardless (and I cant even vote this time, I'll be 17 at the time of the voting

), but this will piss off OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of people. I mean, out of all my family (the closest of my family that is, Grandparents, Parents, Close Aunts \ Uncles \ Great Aunts \ Great Uncles) only like 3 or 4 of them are gonna vote for Bush and thats because they are crazy religious freaks.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 25, 2004, 1:43 pm

This is the 2000's. America loves gay people!

This is a very valid point. Gays are everywhere from TV/ movies and in the news. Thier lifestyle is boderline popular culture right now. 15-20 years ago this action may have stood a chance, but in today's America, gays are just too non-threatening to cause people to rally behind such an obviously discriminitory action.

Really bad timing on the part of the Republicans. You can only cash in on the public's fear in a certian window of time. It would seem they missed it in regards to gays. The culture is pretty much on display and has been for years.