NEW YORK (AP) — A judge has thrown out the first direct legal challenge to the New York governor's move to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, calling the policy a legally allowable stand for fairness.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5grygngg...CUtsPQD92UUD8O3

This ruling thrills me and I am sure that NY will become one of the states that gay marriage is allowed eventually. It is nice to see progress is being made on many fronts and that gays are slowly but gradually becoming accepted into mainstream America.

Being a New Yorker, I am happy my friends can marry and have them recognized in the state. However, this marriage thing is NOT for me. Kudos to anyone who it is for.

Yeah, the idea of marriage creeps me out. Suddenly not having sex and perhaps having to give another dude half my salary if the relationship breaks up sounds like a bad idea.

That said, I want my friends to have to ability to choose the same misery straight people have the right to.

Suddenly not having sex

Sex with your spouse? That stops gradually, not all at once!

Sex with other people -- that has to stop? Your choice of course. But sleeping with someone is one thing; building a life together is another. No?

and perhaps having to give another dude half my salary if the relationship breaks up

Pre-nup!

Dude,

The courts already suck at enforcing prenups for straight people. Imagine how they'll enforce them for us!

So marry a rich guy.

I think I'd have to get rid of my beer belly first.

I think I'd have to get rid of my beer belly first.

Sounds easier than getting rich by working.

(Especially working in France!)

Hey, the income tax is only 65 percent here!

Hey, the income tax is only 65 percent here!

Small, cheesey dicks and high taxes. So what's the attraction?

Small, cheesey dicks and high taxes. So what's the attraction?

The best balm for the soul: an ethnically-based insult. Meant in the best possible way, of course.

A theme song for those who are into that sort of thing:

Here's a first-rate opportunity

To get married with impunity,

And indulge in the felicity

Of unbounded domesticity.

You shall quickly be parsonifierd,

Conjugally matrimonified,

By a doctor of divinity

Who is located in this vicinity.

Gilbert & Sullivan is suddenly all the rage!

http://mc.daddysreviews.com/dcboard.php?az...27669&page=

(...are the rage?)

High time, too.

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa - bel!

Gilbert & Sullivan is suddenly all the rage!

http://mc.daddysreviews.com/dcboard.php?az...27669&page=

(...are the rage?)

High time, too.

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa - bel!

If I'd suspected I was being as unoriginal as that I would have suppressed the impulse.

Forced into a corner, I'd say "are". Otherwise, "must be" would not only fill the bill but circumvent the quandary, assuming that's what you want done to your quandary.

If I'd suspected I was being as unoriginal as that I would have suppressed the impulse.

No, no! Surely grand harmonic convergence can be a good thing, just as much as (viz. the Aztec calendar) a very bad thing.

assuming that's what you want done to your quandary.

One generally aims one's peregrinations straight down the middle of the quandary. Where things get most interesting.

Hadn't you noticed?

No, no! Surely grand harmonic convergence can be a good thing, just as much as (viz. the Aztec calendar) a very bad thing.

One generally aims one's peregrinations straight down the middle of the quandary. Where things get most interesting.

Hadn't you noticed?

Frequently, but I've been too prudish to mention it.

too prudish

Too hard on yourself!

Rather, I gratefully consider your discretion Edwardian.

Too hard on yourself!

Rather, I gratefully consider your discretion Edwardian.

Entirely appropriate, given my irrepressible tendency to blush scarlet at the slightest provocation, and my susceptibility to the vapors. Or is that Victorian?

This must END! I have errands to run and I want to get them done before Hanna unloads on us. If I keep getting tempted back to the keyboard I'll need flotation equipment. I'll be strong and turn this contraption off now.

Later.

Or is that Victorian?

...It is simply Court etiquette!

P.S. Formidable resource...

http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/index.html

I've heard of this phenomena of hijacking of a thread, but had not seen it in action till this thread...

Do other fellow NY'ers feel gay marriage is gonna happen there as well?

I've heard of this phenomena of hijacking of a thread, but had not seen it in action till this thread...

Aw! Couldn't you look on it as filigree? Or marginalia, such as medieval scribes would add...

"Thin ink, bad vellum, difficult text. This vellum is hairy." - Translations of complaints by medieval Irish monks in the margins of manuscripts. http://www.regia.org/quill3.htm

I've heard of this phenomena of hijacking of a thread, but had not seen it in action till this thread...

Do other fellow NY'ers feel gay marriage is gonna happen there as well?

Consider your cherry popped. Hope it was fun.

As to gay marriage, there's a sizable contingent of us who don't care whether it happens in our lifetimes. Even in the city of myriad temptations, our relationships and attachments are grounded firmly enough to have nothing to gain by the application of marriage vows or a license. We'd settle for civil unions or simply for laws that guarantee us the rights we're due. But to my understanding, the hard-core gay-marriagers find that inadequate and forcefully turn it down pending the realization of the summum bonum.

Other than that, I love Gov. Paterson for his efforts in favor of gay marriage, and wish him every success. But progress will be slow to nonexistent thanks to Republican legislators and groups who'll drag any initiative through frivolous suit after frivolous suit.

We'd settle for civil unions or simply for laws that guarantee us the rights we're due. But to my understanding, the hard-core gay-marriagers find that inadequate and forcefully turn it down pending the realization of the summum bonum.

Civil unions are infinitely better than nothing. But as one of the hard core, I see a couple of things they don't do that marriage does.

First, the symbolic. Civil unions reek of segregated drinking fountains. I don't see how any such separate-but-equal formulation can escape the pernicious implication that this is a privilege granted, rather than a right asserted.

Second, the pragmatic. Civil unions don't engage the federal constitutional guarantees that state-conferred rights are portable throughout the nation, in the way that recognition of marriage rights incontestably historically does. To be sure, we have DOMA despite this. But as I say over and over, it seems inevitable to me that DOMA must sooner or later fall because it violates the full-faith-and-credit clause. And now challenges on due-process grounds are also starting to be conceived.

The more states recognize same-sex marriage, the more likely that courts will have the courage to rule the right way as they hear challenges to DOMA and to individual states' refusal to recognize other states' same-sex marriages.

Damn this thread got hijacked.