1st

Does this cake make me look gay?

His gayness is really on a roll today.

The city of Washington was built on a stagnant swamp some 200 years ago, and very little has changed. It stank then, and it stinks now.

FIRST to sing "It's raining men! Hallelujah, It's raining men!!!"

5: Cite your sources.

Who cares?

Go America! You know, it's only taken hundreds of years for my country to remove the shackles off me, allow my parents to marry, and now (begin) to allow me to marry. Hundreds of years to enjoy the same constitutional rights and privileges that white landowning men had at the beginning.

-Anyone else think minorities might be at a statistical substantive disadvantage in the US? I'm not advocating for or against Affirmative-Action (and please don't debate it one way or the other on here, that debate is old). I'm just asking for a little acknowledgment that minorities (of all types) are at a competitive disadvantage as compared to the non minority majorities. Just some acknowledgment, that's it people.

-proud mixed/mulatto gay male.

What's the symbology of this?

No one cares if you are gay. Stop bringing it up, go be 'married' somewhere else and let the rest of the world get on with their business.

Methinks that if DC fully legalizes gay unions, it would represent quite the Constitutional dilemna should Congress decide not to approve the law . . .

10, how could you not praise his Obamaness in you post while expressing your gayness?

As if I don't have enough to do, I now have to go to Sacramento next week for a site inspection with an expert. Anyone know of any good restaurants there?

10 - no

9: citation!!!

10 -
Since the President of the United States is also a "proud mixed/mulatto gay male" I would have to say no. Please go away.

11,
it seems this entire post that's dedicated to the issue of gayness cares about gayness. also, since you took the time to comment after clicking on a gay post probably means you care too.
13,
obama is cool, but this isn't inherently about politics and i in no way want to credit obama for striking down slavery, granting me the right to vote, striking down antimiscegenation laws and allowing same sex marriage. in fact, he has done very little on each of those issues. i do love him though.
15,
i dont really need affirmation from a random comment board, i was more of a rhetorical request, not meant to be followed unless you were simply busting at the seams to. the point of the request was to make people think about how shocking this SHOULD be, not because it is "mercifully" happening, but because we're not all shocked this didn't happen sooner. our mouths should be open that it took this long, not because we're happy it's finally happening. learn how to read between the lines bro, it's called rhetorical subtlety. use it.

-10

Oh my god, Lindsay. Pull yourself together.

It was only a matter of time.

"We didn't get our forty acres and a mule, but we did get you, CC."

Gay divorce will be the fun issue. I want to see a case that has a man acting like that entitled countess in NYC.

Don't take 10's bait. He's just trying to start an argument.

This is hardly a wedge issue for Obama - he'll ignore it and if he has to, eventually come down on the pro civil union side.

Minorities are at an advantage. It sucks being a white male these days. Everyone wants to hire minorities and gays. I'm a white male and I never owned a slave. And 10 never was a slave. Get over it.

BLACKS IN CALIFORNIA were key to preventing gay marriage there, and in D.C. the black population is OVER 60%.

Good luck with that.

But if it does become legal, it will illustrate that the council is out of touch with its constituents, the black population is not paying attention, or both.

Any news about the gays? Haven't read anything in a while.

24 -

You're out of touch. I'm out of time.

-- Hall or Oates or Hall and Oates

The DC church community is going to be all over this. Even Marion Barry may have trouble getting elected if this passes.

Good to see that the news cycle is back on track.
I smell recovery.

Everything is so grim nowadays, we need gayness in our lives.....

Everything is so grim nowadays, we need gayness in our lives.....HHG....Hail His/Her Gayness

FREE AT LAST!
FREE AT LAST!

10, your disgust for gay people has been duly noted. You may resume fantasizing about large penises in your bunghole.

33 here. I mean 11.

10 yes, I think blacks are at a disadvantage. Your average IQ is much lower.

I cant wait until gay marriage is legally acceptable...that will make it so people accept me! Just like when prostitution and drugs are legal, it makes them good things to do.

Don't say it's about equality, you have that with civil unions. This is about acceptance.

Stop forcing your gayness down my throat please.

(sorry, I couldn't help that last part)

36 is totally lame. And what's what the gayness down your throat business? That sounds totally gay.

I think we should start a new contest on here, try to guess which state will be the LAST to legalize gay marriage.

38, sweet idea:
Quick clarification: This issue will clearly become a federal issue (a la Loving v. Virginia) within a decade or so, and the feds will eventually force the small hold out of states that still outlaw gay marriage.
Question: Are we guessing the last State to flip on its own, or any of the last states to be forced to flip?

FREED THAT ASS!!
FREED THAT ASS!!
THANK GOD ALMIGHTY, WE HAVE FREED THAT ASS!!

Marriage is so gay.

38, Utah!

to 14, aka Stranded in Sacramento:

try Paragarys ("california"/northern italian cuisine) or Frank Fats (chi chi Chinese food). Both are Sacto landmarks with some history behind them. You'll need to wear business attire for Fats, no dress code for Paragarys.

39, I'm going to say it will be more than a decade for SCOTUS to end it. I'm going to say 20 years. As with so many cases involving bass-ackwards social policies, the case will involve a Texas law. Good idea on the second pool!

As for the last state to do it voluntarily... UT or NC. Hmm. I'm going to go out on a limb and say Utah.

Last state to voluntarily approve of same-sex marriage Tournament:

Hmm, Virginia or North Carolina....I'm going with Virginia.

36, I'll stop shoving my gayness down your throat when you stop giving a fuck how I live my life.

45, I'm voting for Mississippi.

46, don't take the bait. Honestly.

You know what would be great, would be if people could get into a fight on here about gay people.

Basic civil right? They'd all give it up for 2 Madonna tickets & a D&G tank top.

They just want all eyes to be on them for a 'special day' like every other day. The gay overdrama cliche.

A question for all the homophobes. Are you this open about your hatred of gays in fora where your identity is known? Just curious, because it saddens me to think that I may have gone to school with a few of you and missed my opportunity to push you down the stairs.

49: Don't waste your breath. They are losers getting fired from law firms and they have to lash out at somebody.

49, I'd like to see you try.

Don't say it's about equality, you have that with civil unions. This is about acceptance.

36 has no idea what the gay marriage is about and what the actual differences between civil unions and marriage are and/or the 1000 rights associated with one and not the other. 36 is the reason why the founders were afraid of majority rule, given that the majority are made up of people like 36 who can't wrap their 2digit IQs around the difference between marriage and civil unions.

24 is a white male that would like to blame minorities for his own failure at life. Booo hooooo it's so hard being white. And male. At the same time. We know 24 demonstrates the same sense of entitlement that will continue his pattern on failure and thus he will continue to blame others.

52 is correct. Most anti-gay-marriage people don't have a problem with civil unions, which provide homosexuals with the exact same set of legal rights as heterosexuals receive in marriage. Or if they don't currently do so in whatever way, they can be rewritten to fix any discrepancies / inequalities. Instead, this is about attaining legitimacy / acceptance for homosexuals in the eyes of the populace by changing the law.
That's the problem many anti-gay-marriage people have -- not liking our moral stance on the issue to be dictated to by the government. No one is suggesting that gay people should be deprived of rights, but just that marriage fundamentally is an institution between two members of the opposite sex, and that should gay people want a comparable version of their own, that they pursue civil unions offering (or which can be made to offer) them the exact same rights.

38--can only give you a final four: Utah, Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia

54 epic fail

Marriage is not equivalent to a Civil Union

It wasn't long ago in America when Black and White heterosexuals were not allowed to marry one another. While Loving v. Virginia struck down anti-miscegenation laws, imagine if the Court had taken the road you are advoacting and provided the reasons you provide: "Marriage fundamentally is an institution between two members of the (same race), and that should (interracial couples) want a comparabler version of their own, that they pursue Civil Unions that offer them the exact same rights."

I literally used your entire language except I plugged in same sex and interracial where you had opposite sex and gay people written.

Epic fail 54

-45

56: Way to throw out the straw man argument linking the Civil Rights Movement to gay rights. In fact, many African Americans are (perhaps, rightfully) offended by the comparison and vigorously challenge its validity.

If you hadn't noticed, I never said marriage and civil unions were equivalent, but I said that the latter, if it doesn't already, could be made to offer the same rights as the former. This isn't simply playing with semantics, because many of the anti-gay-marriage viewpoint simply don't believe there's such a thing as a same sex marriage by definition.

If homosexuality is immutable, why isn't it treated medically as a sexual dysfunction, like ED, or a mental illness, like schizophrenia?

Give the homos 10% off Vaseline and tell them to get the f*&# back in the closet.

36 here:

45, how are marriage and civil unions not equal? It has been baldly asserted, but no one has given any reasoning at to how it is different.

I would assert that the only difference is about moral/social acceptance (i.e. how it is viewed by society). That is why I made the prostitution joke...because it won't be seen as acceptable even if legal (so this whole argument is dumb in some ways).

I know my comment above was smart-assed...but really, I want to know how they are unequal. If I believed that they were unequal, I honestly would change my stance.

I do believe gay people are no different than anyone else when it comes to rights...despite the fact that I believe it is immoral.

46 - I don't care how you live your life...but you can't honestly assert that this debate doesn't have any effect on society. It effects people in your position and in mine...that is why the civilized debate is necessary.

If you don't see the effects, you need to place yourself in other people's shoes. Once things become a matter of right, there are other side-effects. E.g. can churches get sued for denying a gay couple a marriage ceremony like businesses can be sued for discrimination? If so, do you feel okay with dictating people's religious beliefs? When I try to imagine the other perspective I can only see the issue coming down to acceptance. I'll admit that I can never really get the other perspective, but I have tried.

This issue isn't simple. The most unfortunate part is that the gay side calls everyone a bigoted hater without trying to even tolerate their beliefs (I would equate civil unions to a good faith attempt at tolerance from the opposition).

This is now too long...I don't blame anyone for not reading. Hell, I'm not even going to proof-read.

56 epic fail.

You're using the language while ignoring the idea. Anti-miscegenation was based on targeting people in what is in fact a sliding scale on race. To say gender is a sliding scale is absurd. Anti-miscegenation was based on targeting and eliminating civil rights of a group. Gays never had marriage civil rights in the first place. Theirs is an argument towards expanding rights.

54 epic fail.

The tantrum of going beyond civil unions into marriage is just gays being melodramatic and lesbians being overly confrontational.

43, thanks! Those places look good.
--14

have you people even read Brown v. Board? If you had, you would realize that the social stigma associated with separate schools (even if they were in all other respects equivalent) was the basis of the Court's ruling. The same can be said of civil unions v. marriage.

The Brown court premised their holding on voluminous findings regarding the detrimental effect of this social stigma. Could the same ever be said in this context? Not anti gay marriage, just don't think you can really fit it into Brown that neatly.

36/60,

46 here. I think you intended to write me. Many states, including California, have been down this road before. In wish I could remember the name of the major case, but I can't. In any event, the Court rejected a suggestion that inter-racial couples be given the same rights under a different name. They found it per se discriminatory on the basis that the only justification for the different nomenclature was a moral belief that parties of different races should not be married. The same is true here.

Sure, it'd be great if you accepted me, but I'm realistic. Don't think that's going to happen. I do think, however, that my government should acknowledge that I have the same rights as you, including the right to marry, if I so choose (and I have). Anything less than that is a government statement that I'm less worthy, and it sets a really bad precedent. Why then couldn't Texas decide that Jews can have civil unions, but they can't marry, because they killed Jesus. It's a ridiculous argument, but you get the point.

That said, the religious freedom argument really is a red herring intended to mobilize churchgoers. Our religion clauses will always prevent the state from forcing churches to perform acts that conflict with their beliefs. Sure, they may have to comply with laws of equal application (i.e., if you're gonna open the dance hall you own for weddings, it should be open to everyone--gays, Jews, Muslims, lapsed Catholics, whomever), but nothing's going to force your church to do anything within its confines that it disagrees with.

60, you know, some of us are angry and some do lash out, but it's probably equal on both sides of the debate. Believe it or not, we think we're on the moral side of this argument. We live in the most diverse country on earth. People here should be entitled to live as they chose (within limits, of course). Our point is, that limit is a little too far to the right. My marriage has no impact on your life and it injures no one. You might have a moral objection, and you're entitled to that, but it should not interfere with my equal rights. I'm not asking for special rights--just the same rights that you have.

Given the inequalities we have in this country and the overwhelming good works that can be done here, I find it sad that such vast resources have been devoted to denying a small, albeit vocal, subset of the population, the right to marry. It's a waste, and it's shameful. Religion should govern how you live you life not dictate how others live theirs. I've read the Bible, and I can tell you that that comports more with the teachings of Jesus than does the religious right's efforts to control others.

60: Take a look at the GAO report from 1997 and 2003 w/r/t to the federal statutes that require "marriage" in order to obtain 1138 federal rights/privileges/benefits. "Marriage" for these purposes does not include "unions" "civil unions" "registered domestic partnerships" or "emglafs" "gollups" "toe stickies" or any other word that is not marriage. Thus, they are substantively unequal.

61 does not understand the difference between civil union and marriage.

46:

36 again...Thanks for the response. It is what I expected, but from a slightly different angle. It's something to think about.

I wouldn't say the religious freedom thing is a red herring. Catholic hospitals are now being forced to uphold a woman's 'right' to choose or offer the plan B pill, even though they believe it is murder.

Society does not respect religion. And although they are not forced to, they should. Similar to how you want to be respected. That is the funny irony of these debates...the prop 8 debate turned into religion vs gays. And in the process, gay people acted exactly like (or worse) than the people they were complaining about.

Perhaps the better solution that no on seems to discuss anymore is to ask the question: why is the government involved in the first place? That is the only true way that we can both live by our own conscience. You can call anything what you want, and so can I.

The longer I live and observe, the more libertarian I become. If gov't didn't attempt to regulate or sanction marriage, abortion, etc., none of this would be an issue.

As far as the "acceptance" thing. I don't think anything of it when I'm with gay people. I teach my children that you treat gay people no different than anyone else. But I also need to be free to teach my children that I believe it is wrong...and it needs to be done without public schools undermining me, etc. These are some of the effects that I worry about (and they are happening in MA, CA, etc.)

Again, maybe the answer is no gov't.

-hopefully you see this and come to think that people against your cause are not necessarily doing it out of hate...that simply is not true.

"Or if they don't currently do so in whatever way, they can be rewritten to fix any discrepancies / inequalities."

Yes. Gays are met with spitfire resistance for trying to get the word "marriage" in one context. They're trying to destroy the family and religious tradition. instead of restricting their arguments to the marriage context, they should work for an overhaul of the entire legal system--and press for a rewording of 1138 different statutes which can simply "be rewritten to fix any discrepancies."

Man I can't believe I have to share a species with you people.

61 doesn't understand the difference between gender and being gay.

sorry about the crazy triple negative...the point is that I don't hate you because you're gay.

When people assume that, they instantly lose credibility and aren't worth arguing with...and then it breaks down to the childish BS that surrounded Prop 8.

"Perhaps the better solution that no on seems to discuss anymore is to ask the question: why is the government involved in the first place? That is the only true way that we can both live by our own conscience. You can call anything what you want, and so can I."

Ok I don't think any gay person is saying you have to call it anything other than you want to call it. Gay people want to call it whatever will qualify them for survivor benefits, social security pensions, immigration benefits, medicaid, property and income tax deductions, veterans benefits, joint parenting rights, bankruptcy rights, domestic violence protections (and so one and so forth and shoobie doobie doobie).

54 has zero reading comprehension skills

this is outstanding - the lesbians at kinky spalding will be over joyed ... they can now have sex with and marry their clients