Nice: Massachusetts Senate votes to allow out-of-state gay couples to marry
Things are changing fast. Previously, out-of-state couples could not wed in Massachusetts due to an obscure 1913 law, but the Senate voted to repeal it today. Good-As-You:
The House is expected to do the same later this week, at which point the repeal will head to the desk of Gov. Deval Patrick, who has already announced his excitement about signing it.
Very, very cool. New York might as well go ahead and legalize marriage equality since gay couples no longer have to fly to California, but can simply go next door (a simple day-trip on the train), get married, and have their marriages recognized fully back home.
What’s that sound?
Just the silence of the sky not falling.
July 15, 2008 at 8:41 pm
If the institution of marriage has nothing to do with the perpetuation of the human species then how can a man and a woman be married as heterosexual? If the institution of marriage has nothing to do with the perpetuation of the human species then a man and a woman can only be married as matingless. Mating is heterosexual–heterosexual is mating. Air tight!
July 16, 2008 at 12:47 am
I was just thinking, who said the world was going to end (ie sky falls) because gays married? Gay people have always existed, in the same numbers, and probably have been doing something like american marriage for all of existence, and the world has always been just fine. (unless you guys caused global warming…)
oh…we’re so…our-time-centric. Of course OUR time in history is the ‘end’!
July 16, 2008 at 1:11 am
Vlad: your blood sugar seems to be low.
Joe: the anti-gay right is pretty solidly Chicken Little about the issue, wouldn’t you agree?
July 16, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Totally. I respect that they believe gayness is wrong, but the stories they come up with about the end of western civilization are just a little bit insane.
July 16, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Compromise: The official legal definition of marriage will be, “A union of a man and a woman mating heterosexual relations, and, intimate human relations involving two adult human beings”. Homosexual marriage advocates want to cut, “A union of a man and a woman…” completely out of the definition of marriage and REPLACE it with “…intimate human relations involving two adult human beings”. But, what happened to “EXPANDING” the institution of marriage TO ALLOW homosexual relations to become marriage? What homosexual marriage advocates are doing is called Bait and Swith and is one of the very oldest tricks in the book. Whether the institution of marriage does or doesn’t have something to do with the perpetuation of the human species is of secondary importance because the perpetuation of the human species has nothing to do with whether homosexual relations or heterosexual relations are marriage or not. Of PRIMARY importance is “What does or doesn’t the LAW say” because it’s the law that determines what relations are or are not marriage not the perpetuation of the human species. Homosexual marriage advocates MUST accept this compromise in order to have ANY credibility. Then the discussion can turn to the relationship between the perpetuation of the human species and the institution of marriage. AIR TIGHT!
July 16, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Vlad, srsly, eat a granola bar or something. I’m worried about your blood sugar levels.
July 16, 2008 at 7:33 pm
All human relations are inherently matingless and ALL human relations ARE matingless unless and untill a man and a woman mate. This statement is, A: human beings accurately matching-up their human subjective reality with human relations in objective reality, B: homophobia, C: both.