I'll sign it. If the state can tell me who I can marry, there's no reason it shouldn't be able to me whether I can divorce.

kim wrote:

So, if you are married to an abusive crazy person, too bad for you?
Like I always say, "California: 'the fuck?"

They say you can get an annulment, but I thought that you couldn't get an annulment if you had consumated the marriage.

Repeat after me, kids:

MARRIAGE IS STUPID.

All these people have to do is go to the Castro or West Hollywood and they will find more than enough pissed off gay people to sign this thing.  If I still lived in California, I would sign it.  If the bigoted assholes conservative people of California can make ballot decisions about my relationship, I should be able to make ballot decisions about theirs!

fnord wrote:

All these people have to do is go to the Castro or West Hollywood and they will find more than enough pissed off gay people to sign this thing.  If I still lived in California, I would sign it.  If the bigoted assholes conservative people of California can make ballot decisions about my relationship, I should be able to make ballot decisions about theirs!

fuck off Fnord - the gay folks don't want marriage rights overall; they just want marriage rights for themselves.  Their selfserving, bigotted ways deserve the denial they got.

Government doesn't belong in marriage; marriage is a contract between consenting adults, it doesn't matter what sex or how many....but NOOooo the faggots only want to change the definition to suit their particular different brand of marriage - fuck everyone else.

I'm glad they're miserable - they deserve it; I've had enough of the prejudiced self-serving fags.  Freedom for all or freedom for none.

Taint wrote:

I've argued that for a long time. The state doesn't belong in relationships. If it has to be registered with the state for whatever purposes, make all "legal" relationships civil unions. Then, if someone has to have their relationship sanctified by whatever imaginary beings they believe are interested in those matters, they can go to a church for marriage ceremony.

If anything, I'm angry that the civil rights drive for gays and lesbians has been co-opted by narrow interests such as whether gays should serve in the military, or should be allowed to be married. We should have been working for overall rights rather than focusing on matters that are only portions of the over-all prize and simply inflame people who are too ignorant or hateful or both to oppose us.

But that's just me.

Tainty buddy, I'm with you; the government should have zero interest other than to validate a contract that may result in offspring and to protect the rights of those offspring (regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents).

We can discuss the gay/military problem but all else should be outside of the scope of government.

I love you.

No, I mean I really looooove you.

Let's get the government involved!

*bangs head against desk*


Do you guys realize how long it has taken me to get this concept through Mr. Sofie's head? 17 years.

AND HE STILL WANTS TO GET MARRIED.

He humors me, because if he didn't, I would run.

I don't care who thinks I'm a fucking crank. It's a shit deal all around, and I think if someone is that fucking insecure, then their relationship is probably doomed anyhow.

One more time:

A PIECE OF PAPER DOES NOT A REAL COMMITMENT MAKE.

Taint wrote:

sofaking wrote:

One more time:

A PIECE OF PAPER DOES NOT A REAL COMMITMENT MAKE.

Umm, yeah... could I get that in writing?

If a person's word and intention don't mean anything, a piece of paper can't magically fix one's integrity.

For business purposes, contracts are fine. But not in a relationship.

You stay together until you no longer want to, then you move on. Your personal possessions stay yours, a family court can assist with child custody and financial support.