every lesbian couple I know have multiple dogs... no cats, and none have just a single dog (ranging from my cousin and her wife, who have 2, to my boyfriend's mom who's got 6 )
every lesbian couple I know have multiple dogs... no cats, and none have just a single dog (ranging from my cousin and her wife, who have 2, to my boyfriend's mom who's got 6 )
Won't someone please think of the rabbits!
(I know a lot of lesbians, and not one of them has any exotic pets. They are about an even mix between cats, dogs, and no pets)
in related news, my cat just laid down with my dog and the river appears to be running red with blood.
the tears are so delicious
Not quite all. Mine wasn't. We simply divided our stuff, paid $50 to a lawyer, paid $85 in court costs, and parted amicably.Divorce (of a real marriage gay or straight haha) is never simple. The gay community is now going to also enjoy the hell heteros go through. I had a cousin who had sorts of crap come up in her divorce even though they never had kids and both worked with similar incomes. The brown stuff always manages to hit the fan.
Agreed, and well said. This ruling also extends the benefits of marriage to same sex couples and children of same sex couples, and if one truly believes in the sanctity and benefits of marriage, that's a good thing.All true conservatives should rejoice with this ruling, as the principle that says the government should have no power over behavior between consenting adults and over who consenting adults may marry is greater than any personal feelings of homosexuality.
That the principle allows others freedoms you may not agree with is the whole point, and whether you agree or not is of no importance frankly.
While that's the true base of the term, two strong planks of modern American conservatism are a professed desire for smaller, more limited government and an admiration for marriage as an institution. No government can be considered small or limited if it holds a veto right over one's choice of spouse, and whatever benefits one sees in marriage are equally valid in homosexual couples, with only the small caveat that statistically same sex couples won't have kids as often.No. A conservative wants to conserve. They want things to stay the same. A libertarian is someone who wants freedom as the primary goal. Often people self label themselves as both things, but they are different. Libertarian's should be happy with this, but I sure many libertarian wont be happy either.
Where is this right written into law? What law are they applying equal protection under? I am told there's no federal definition of marriage.
(b) The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a mar-
riage between two people of the same sex. Pp. 10–27.
(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices
central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choic-
es defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v.
Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479,
484–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying in-
terests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them
its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry
but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals dis-
cord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received le-
gal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.
Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is
protected by the Constitution. For example, Loving v. Virginia, 388
U.S. 1, 12, invalidated bans on interracial unions, and Turner v.
Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95, held that prisoners could not be denied the
right to marry.
(2) Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the rea-
sons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with
equal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s rel-
evant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding mar-
riage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding
connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated
interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. See 388
U. S., at 12. Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate
that an individual can make. See Lawrence, supra, at 574. This is
true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.
Justice Scalia said:
“One would think that Eskimospy's showy profundities are a jaw-dropping Sphinx. Come on.”
Hmm...
I'm definitely not a supporter of gay marriage (not an opposer for that matter, either), but I'm finding it hard to see why people who opposed it are so damn angry.
I found the Federal definition for Marriage: Liberty.
this. i just don't get it. why are they so upset at something that has nothing to do with them
Hmm...
I'm definitely not a supporter of gay marriage (not an opposer for that matter, either), but I'm finding it hard to see why people who opposed it are so damn angry.
Cracked.com said:If You Are a Homosexual and Are Already Married:
If you had been lucky enough to live in a state that allowed gay marriage, the federal government already recognized your marriage as a thing, and you were eligible for tax, health, and pension benefits under federal law like any other married couple. Previously, if you had moved to another state that didn't recognize gay marriage, that state didn't have to recognize your marriage. Now, your marriage is recognized everywhere, the same as anyone else's.
If You Are a Homosexual and Want to Get Married:
Where before this came down to whether or not your state had legalized it, now you are free to do so regardless of which state you live in.
If You Are a Heterosexual and Do NOT Want to Enter into a Homosexual Marriage:
You will not be required to marry a gay person. This is a common misunderstanding. This decision actually does not affect you in any way.
If You Are Currently in a Heterosexual Marriage:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are a Heterosexual Who Is Not Currently Married:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are a Heterosexual Who Hopes to Eventually Marry:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are a Member of a Church That Performs Wedding Ceremonies but That Does Not Believe in Gay Marriage:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are a Religious Official Who Performs Wedding Ceremonies but Who Thinks Gay Marriage Is Wrong:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are an Individual Who Believes Gay Marriage or Homosexuality in General Is Wrong for Religious Reasons, and Wish to Continue Expressing Those Beliefs:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are an Individual Who Believes Gay Marriage or Homosexuality in General Is Wrong for Non-Religious Reasons, and Wish to Continue Expressing Those Beliefs:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are a Heterosexual Who Fears This Decision Adversely Affects Your Marriage or the Concept of Marriage in General:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are a Heterosexual Who Fears This Decision Negatively Affects You in Some Way:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are a Heterosexual Who Suffers Anger or Anxiety at the Thought of Gay Couples Getting Married as an Abstract Concept, and Believes the Only Cure Is to Legally Prevent Gay Marriage:
This decision will cause you some degree of anger or anxiety. Otherwise, this decision does not affect you in any way.
Plus I'm pretty sure that cat is underage.How dare you post NSFW material in the thread... re.. port... ed...
REPORTED!!!
....
Plus I'm pretty sure that cat is underage.
well yeah... the sucking is the whole reason I need to lock it down and put a ring on him.