rideside.net

home | archive | comics | about

throwing shoes since '04

archive / 2007 / 01 / 02

Posted by tgl on 2007-01-02 21:07:14 +0000

They Voted

Happy they voted, disappointed with the <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/01/legislature_app.html">result</a>.

Are any State legislators up for re-election next year? I predict those 61 will have pro-marriage opponents if they are up for election, and most incumbents will lose.
Posted by ConorClockwise on 2007-01-02 23:48:03 +0000
Pro-marriage means what here?
Isn't it "for" the ban.
Posted by tgl on 2007-01-03 00:47:18 +0000
I'm pro-marriage. We should not create artificial barriers that keep two people from enjoying the fiscal and emotional benefits, er, _emotional_ and fiscal benefits of marriage.
Posted by MF DU on 2007-01-03 03:35:10 +0000
If you are a citizen and you pay taxes everyone should get the same treatment from their state and US government. Everyone.
Posted by tendiamonds on 2007-01-03 13:26:41 +0000
Even the ones who don't pay their taxes.
Posted by MF DU on 2007-01-03 13:44:02 +0000
Yes I agree even if you dont pay taxes, too - but I'm just saying 'paying taxes' to demonstrate that those folks who are paying to support a system, and if you are honestly contributing to that system no matter how broken said system is, the system should benefit those that pay into it.
Posted by tgl on 2007-01-03 14:26:16 +0000
Which is why I don't support polygamy. As far as I know, the entire state of Utah has not filed a Form 1040 since 1937.
Posted by MF DU on 2007-01-03 14:32:51 +0000
I cant imagine why anyone would want more than one spouse. One will be plenty for me, thanks.
Posted by tendiamonds on 2007-01-03 14:49:03 +0000
I want my spouse to have another spouse, so I can play in the shed.
Posted by ConorClockwise on 2007-01-03 15:33:03 +0000
The angle I'm getting from the anti-gay lobby, is that everyone will get the same treatment from their state and federal governments, but same sexed couples will not be allowed to call it marriage. Seriously, all they want is a seperate box on the certificate that says "civil union" and another "marriage", which is only for a man and a woman. Which brings it back to the concept which many of us share, that the state shouldn't be marrying people in the first place.
Posted by tgl on 2007-01-03 15:49:38 +0000
MA out of the marriage racket!
Posted by G lib on 2007-01-03 16:07:39 +0000
here here!

Posted by MF DU on 2007-01-03 16:11:26 +0000
Now <b>THAT</b> is hard to argue with. ;) lol - good point 10D.
Posted by tendiamonds on 2007-01-03 22:11:59 +0000
Where where?
Find me on github.