Went to go see the teaparty in lockport on Friday. The band was ok but the singer lost his voice halfway through the show. It was one of those shows were all the fans seems to know all the words and sang along.
I was no so into the venue. It was so super crowded and the ticket line was like a half hour long and wound through the cloud while the concession lines themselves were short because no one had tickets.
The pinnacle moment if irritation was when some super tan bitch elbowed me because I did not let her and her multiple cans of beer through right away.
I hate girls that assume that I am some desperate straight guy and that they can do whatever they want because they look slutty. I did finally let her through but not before spitting in her hair. I hope she gets orange tongue to go with her fake tan.
I wish things were as clear in everyone's heads about what the definition of "marriage" really is as it is in your's (e:ExBuffalonian). Then we wouldn't have all this mess about who is allowed to marry and who isn't. And while we are at it, I also don't understand the fact that you can only pick one person as your next of kin. That is so artificial. You come into the world with so many next of kins... why limit your personal choice of more next of kins to just one? That doesn't sound fair or logical, does it?
Wills can be contested, even explicit ones. Then there's the nasty issue of paying an inheritance tax, from which a spouse is exempt. My boyfriend and I, for example, own our house together with both our names on the title. We set it up that way this time around, because we realized about 5 years ago, when we were in the last house we owned, that he couldn't afford to inherit our house if something happened to me (since we weren't married because we're two guys). When I said that marriage is about establishing next of kin, I meant that from a historical perspective. Marriage never was an exclusive Christian invention or tradition. It only exists because, from the beginning, people felt they needed a contract that would ensure that the lady would be provided for if/when the husband bit the dust. It serves the same purpose today, just like a will but more comprehensive and less chance of being ambiguous.
It's not just about who gets your crap when you die. It also is who can make medical decisions on your behalf when you aren't able to, who can collect social security survivor benefits (still can't, cause of DOMA), health insurance, tax benefits and also having the right to a divorce. Without marriage equality, same sex couples do not have the same legal process to split the things that were acquired during the course of the relationship should it come to and end. There is no amount of paperwork that you could fill out with a lawyer that would ever equal all that comes with the one simple marriage certificate. Marriage unites two people from different families (usually) into one.
I think there are still questions about that kind of stuff all of the time or wills would not exist. An explicit will sounds like a lot more reliable.
Marriage isn't about God or religion. It's about establishing next of kin, so that one day when you're planted in the ground, there won't be any question about who gets your stuff. Plain and simple.
I love you Mark Grisanti!!! I am so glad I voted for you rather than the dweeb, Antoine. You deserve a LOT of respect for your decision.
When I look at that girl with the tape on her mouth I feel like I am about to be gay bashed as soon as it is ripped off.
Honestly there are concepts that I don't understand... I understand that if two people love each other they can get married and it is about god and family and not sinning and that ok that I get..... But here is what doesn't make sense...
There is freedom of and from Religion and the State can not endorse a religion .... Now if this is true then I have some questions....
Why is being married to more then one person like how the Mormons did it is illegal... Wouldn't this not be granting them the freedom of everyone else... Wouldn't it be discriminatory to Mormons....I say it is.... Aren't there other countries where people have Multiple wives (or they used to) and the wives are about different duties in the home... Not sure if that is cultural or religious but why is that not legal here....
But I guess my real question is how can two people say the love each other get married by god and say an oath "Till Death do You part" yes in god's eyes only death can end it.... Then they get all kinds of special benefits from the government ?
The Only thing that I can think of is they took the English Version of Marriage and no one has had a strong enough case to call it unconstitutional.............
I wish they would do away with marriage. It is such an outdated, inflexible, money-wasting and irritating concept. In my mind, the very fact that it can be docked into something like "traditional" or even "gay" marriage is very telling about how discriminatory and medieval society-pandering a concept it really is. Ugh.
Point #2.... The Claim is that Being brought up in the Church he has this one view but from a legal point of view everyone should have the same rights... That is what he chose and he claims that was the right thing to do....
Reason I say claim is that for all we know maybe he thought that he would gain votes from whom ever he lost votes from... Maybe he knew he was what the media looks at as the swing vote and if he caused (again in the eyes of others at least) it not to pass he didn't want to be that guy in history... He didn't want to look back and say I blew it.... He didn't want to be on as they say the wrong side of history.....
What is really crazy is there is a lawsuit over this.... I think part of the tie in is that people who voted to pass the bill got money and lots of it from gay rights groups the contention is that he was one of them.... I don't buy it.....
Here is what I don't get #1 he isn't the only person who voted for it! Yes they counted everyone one up and he was the deciding vote but you know what if the person before him said no his yes wouldn't have mattered it would have been a tie..... Just because he had the final vote and changed doesn't make his vote any more powerful then anyone else's vote that changed....