Homo marriage frenzy in MA!

[dr_mabeuse]

I saw a news clip showing two guys getting hitched in Mass, a tall black guy and a short stocky white guy, both middle aged. They were both nervous as hell, and I think the black guy must have flubbed his lines because he made an embarrassed face. I was really surprised at how sweet it was.

Love makes fools of us all, I guess. More power to them.

---dr.M.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Amen!

Article 1

Article 2

Thanks for the links, Min.

~lucky

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I mean really: You look at these pictures of these couples with stars in their eyes, and do you really care what sex they are? It's just so sweet to see people so goofy in love like that.

---dr.M.

 

[KarenAM]

I love.

 

[minsue]

I mean really: You look at these pictures of these couples with stars in their eyes, and do you really care what sex they are? It's just so sweet to see people so goofy in love like that.

---dr.M.

Doc, that's one of the most beautiful things I've read all day.

 

[snooper]

<Pours cold water>

Based on the last few marriages I have attended, I have a technical query for Massachusetts lawyers. Did the new law include full equality for same-sex marriages? I mean, did it include provision for the enforcement of per-nuptial agreements after its provision for same-sex divorces?

 

[Liar]

Hmm. The San Fran marriages made a big splash, but I barely noticed this in local media. Could it be because it actually is supported by state this time, and thus less likely to get challenged?

I'll never understand the opposition to gay marriages. If the argument for gays not to be legally marries is that they can't produce kids (the only argument I could ever understand, although not agree with), then sterile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry either. Try to enforce that.

Oh, and love rocks.

 

[Guest]

Re: <Pours cold water>

Based on the last few marriages I have attended, I have a technical query for Massachusetts lawyers. Did the new law include full equality for same-sex marriages? I mean, did it include provision for the enforcement of per-nuptial agreements after its provision for same-sex divorces?

it may be that i am jaded, but i have to wonder the same things.

i don't believe in marriage and equate it to a funeral march. i do, however, believe in true and lasting love. i just do not believe that anyone needs to have a certificate to prove they are commited to a life long relationship. ritualistic paper swapping does not a relationship make. *doncha just love redundancy?*

i am glad to see that people in same sex relationships, making strides to be recognized, i just wish it were in other forms as well.
blather blather blather

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Re: Re: <Pours cold water>

it may be that i am jaded, but i have to wonder the same things.

i don't believe in marriage and equate it to a funeral march. i do, however, believe in true and lasting love. i just do not believe that anyone needs to have a certificate to prove they are commited to a life long relationship. ritualistic paper swapping does not a relationship make. *doncha just love redundancy?*

i am glad to see that people in same sex relationships, making strides to be recognized, i just wish it were in other forms as well.
blather blather blather

I'd agree if that piece of paper didn't also provide for financial responsibilities being acknowledged, as well as insurance coverage and small-minded public recognition that legal and binding does mean forever.

In truth, I do agree. I also wish it were different, but until it is I definitely see the need to make it legal.

~lucky

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: <Pours cold water>

I'd agree if that piece of paper didn't also provide for financial responsibilities being acknowledged, as well as insurance coverage and small-minded public recognition that legal and binding does mean forever.

In truth, I do agree. I also wish it were different, but until it is I definitely see the need to make it legal.

~lucky

yep! i see that point as well.
can someone tell me what the major differences are between a civil union and a marriage?

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Re: Re: Re: Re: <Pours cold water>

yep! i see that point as well.
can someone tell me what the major differences are between a civil union and a marriage?

Just the title, as far as I know. And some tax break stuff. Civil Unions provide for insurance benefits and things as such, but I think most other benefits associated with marriage are still just for het couples.

~lucky

p.s. Vella, I haven't been to bed yet, but I'll check on it (as I'm interested too) and get back to you later.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: <Pours cold water>

Just the title, as far as I know. And some tax break stuff. Civil Unions provide for insurance benefits and things as such, but I think most other benefits associated with marriage are still just for het couples.

~lucky

p.s. Vella, I haven't been to bed yet, but I'll check on it (as I'm interested too) and get back to you later.

thanks lucky. but do try to make it to bed, if only to sleep.

i did some checking on the civil union vs. civil marriage and it seems like there is a huge difference and what a mess!

civil marriage v. civil union

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Damn you Doc for posting such a wonderful, happy and lovely thread. Ya big softie.

 

[shereads]

I saw a news clip showing two guys getting hitched in Mass, a tall black guy and a short stocky white guy, both middle aged. They were both nervous as hell, and I think the black guy must have flubbed his lines because he made an embarrassed face. I was really surprised at how sweet it was.

Love makes fools of us all, I guess. More power to them.

---dr.M.

Yes, but once all the gay couples are married, they'll give birth to gay babies and it will be the end of the human race.

(I read that somewhere in Literotica. I think someone here was quoting a comment they read in the General Forum.)

 

[shereads]

Ya big softie.

I bet he's not.

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: <Pours cold water>

i just do not believe that anyone needs to have a certificate to prove they are commited to a life long relationship. ritualistic paper swapping does not a relationship make.

True, but there are legal protections in those pieces of paper - like the right to make medical decisions for your spouse. Without marriage, the next-of-kin can deny you the right to visit your partner in the hospital in the event that he can't speak for himself. It's also much easier for families to contest a will if the partners weren't married.

Remec posted here once that government shouldn't be involved at all with marriage, which is really a religious insititution, and should limit itself to licensing civil unions. That would make enormous sense. Have your civil union to be assured of certain legal protections, including child custody in the event of a death. And "get married" in your church or as a social ceremony if you like, without legal recognition from the state.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Damn you Doc for posting such a wonderful, happy and lovely thread. Ya big softie.

Softie shmoftie! Who's going to want to be gay if all gay people are all stuffy, complacent married couples like everyone else? Being gay used to be exciting and risky. Soon it'll just be middleclass.

Bah! It's the curse of creeping respectability. Takes all the fun out of life.

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

Softie shmoftie! Who's going to want to be gay if all gay people are all stuffy, complacent married couples like everyone else? Being gay used to be exciting and risky. Soon it'll just be middleclass.

Bah! It's the curse of creeping respectability. Takes all the fun out of life.

---dr.M.

Aw...



There are still the Nylon Fetishists. Those aren't mainstream yet, are they?