Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Seattle Times)   Washington about to make same-sex marriage compulsory   (seattletimes.com) divider line 222
    More: Scary, domestic partners, secretary of states, lesbian couples  
•       •       •

20540 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Feb 2014 at 5:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



222 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-02-17 04:12:37 PM  
Free turtles for everybody!
 
2014-02-17 05:16:00 PM  
Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!
 
2014-02-17 05:16:24 PM  
Why would you do that? Sentence happy, marriageless people to a life of sexless misery?
 
2014-02-17 05:17:57 PM  

iheartscotch: Why would you do that? Sentence happy, marriageless people to a life of sexless misery?


Payback is a biatch.
 
2014-02-17 05:18:03 PM  

iheartscotch: Why would you do that? Sentence happy, marriageless people to a life of sexless misery?


Well, if that is the case, since I'm not really into gay sex, I'm pretty sure being forcibly gay married will not cause me any issues.
 
2014-02-17 05:18:06 PM  
Well, I'll be darned, the fundies were finally right about something.
 
2014-02-17 05:18:42 PM  

hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!


I'm actually surprised that they worded the bill the way they did. Technically, if you've lived with your roommate long enough; congratulations! You're married!
 
2014-02-17 05:19:08 PM  

iheartscotch: Why would you do that? Sentence happy, marriageless people to a life of sexless misery?


Speak for yourself. I get it frequently.

/Yeah, my first marriage was sexless.
//It does get better, though... Provided you get with someone who is better for you.
 
2014-02-17 05:19:17 PM  
Its almost as if all these Republicans are scared to death of not having a law preventing them from coming out and getting gay married!
 
2014-02-17 05:19:43 PM  
Next on the gay agenda - watching the Olympic ice dancing finals.
 
2014-02-17 05:20:32 PM  
The same-sex marriage compulsories are boring.

Let me know when they're holding the same-sex marriage long programs.
 
2014-02-17 05:22:06 PM  
Actually it applies to people who filed for a domestic partnership; a.k.a. marriage before it was legal in Washington. Co-habituating couples are exempt, but it may actually affect Heterosexual couples who used the same procedure to obtain partner rights for health insurance, life insurance, etc.
 
2014-02-17 05:22:26 PM  
What the hell? Do people want this?
 
2014-02-17 05:23:06 PM  

Kittypie070: iheartscotch: Why would you do that? Sentence happy, marriageless people to a life of sexless misery?

Payback is a biatch.


I predict that this will get out of control; with only lawyers profiting from this.

/ why would you force two people to marry? It just doesn't make sense.

// unless, one of them is knocked up; and you happen to be the knocked up girl's dad
 
2014-02-17 05:24:10 PM  

iheartscotch: hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm actually surprised that they worded the bill the way they did. Technically, if you've lived with your roommate long enough; congratulations! You're married!


Yeah, that's common-law marriage.  Fairly standard.  That's how that biatch is going to steal the family house.  In another 2 years, she'll be "married", and then she can get divorced and take the house.

/Everyone knows it.
//Except the uncle who owns the house.
///*sigh*
 
2014-02-17 05:24:40 PM  

Yakk: What the hell? Do people want this?


That's never been a priority of Washington politicians.  Just look at the vote for Safeco Field.
 
2014-02-17 05:24:56 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: iheartscotch: Why would you do that? Sentence happy, marriageless people to a life of sexless misery?

Well, if that is the case, since I'm not really into gay sex, I'm pretty sure being forcibly gay married will not cause me any issues.


It won't effect me either; but, this sounds like something that would happen in Saudi Arabia. Minus all of the gayness, that is.
 
2014-02-17 05:26:18 PM  
fta But even with the notice being sent out, there's still a chance some people who get converted may not know.

Double secret gay turtle marriage, sir?
 
2014-02-17 05:27:07 PM  

hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!


...I call top!
 
2014-02-17 05:27:13 PM  

Yakk: What the hell? Do people want this?


If they had a civil union why wouldn't they want marriage? If you can dodge a wrench you can dodge a ball.
 
2014-02-17 05:28:29 PM  

iheartscotch: this sounds like something that would happen in Saudi Arabia


It's actually very common for straight couples who live together.  This is how me and my 'wife' are 'married.'
 
2014-02-17 05:29:54 PM  

fusillade762: Yakk: What the hell? Do people want this?

If they had a civil union why wouldn't they want marriage? If you can dodge a wrench you can dodge a ball.


Hey now, some of those folks enjoy having balls in their faces.
 
2014-02-17 05:30:23 PM  
www.dvdtalk.com
 
2014-02-17 05:30:36 PM  

fusillade762: If you can dodge a wrench you can dodge a ball.


Kinky gay sex terms, I assume.
 
2014-02-17 05:32:55 PM  
Or there will be those who broke up in the years since they registered as domestic partners, some of them now married - illegally - to other people.

Tonight on Fox! "Bannacock: Illegal Gay Marriage Hunter Downer"

Bannacock: Dis says youse was in a Domestic Partnering with Raymoundo. Yet, I sees you in the park canoodling with this perv, here. What's the story?

Gay Man 1: I broke up with Raymoundo after his Yorkie died. He just couldn't hold it together without Chester. I didn't know I was breaking any laws. Gee, I'd hate to have to go to prison (smiles).

Bannacock: Yeah. I bets youse would. Well, I gots some bad news fer yew. I gotta dissolve yer little DP, quit with the grinnin' I'm serious. This is gonna take a stamp here and a signature dere. You gotta sign dere saying Raymoundo is gono. And I'll be collectin' yer $5 fillin' fee.

Gay Man1: Okay, mister policeman. I sign and here is your $5.

Bannacock: Good. Now youse be good. My associate will be providin' youse with a receipt of payment. Be carefuls, she's a robot what goes nutso if youse say the wrong word or phase. And every week, it's a different word or phrase. Cause programmers, dat's why.

Whitney Cummings as PDBot1138: Printing one receipt now. PC Load Paper. PC Load Paper!

Bannacock: PC Load Paper? What da fark does that mean?
 
2014-02-17 05:33:36 PM  

meyerkev: iheartscotch: hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm actually surprised that they worded the bill the way they did. Technically, if you've lived with your roommate long enough; congratulations! You're married!

Yeah, that's common-law marriage.  Fairly standard.  That's how that biatch is going to steal the family house.  In another 2 years, she'll be "married", and then she can get divorced and take the house.

/Everyone knows it.
//Except the uncle who owns the house.
///*sigh*


Not to rain on your parade anymore; but, some places, if you were open a letter addressed to Mr. & Mrs. DudeShe'sTotsAGoldDigger; you've, technically, acknowledged your intent to marry the girl you're living with.

/ that sucks about the house; but, sometimes, you just can't help other people
 
2014-02-17 05:33:57 PM  
Liberals don't care what you do as long as it's mandatory
 
2014-02-17 05:34:21 PM  

hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!


s3.amazonaws.com

It's time.
 
2014-02-17 05:34:53 PM  

meyerkev: iheartscotch: hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm actually surprised that they worded the bill the way they did. Technically, if you've lived with your roommate long enough; congratulations! You're married!

Yeah, that's common-law marriage.  Fairly standard.


Washington doesn't have common-law marriage IIRC (thank FSM). If you want to be married, you should have to opt in to it rather than having it forced on you.
 
2014-02-17 05:35:58 PM  

Egoy3k: iheartscotch: this sounds like something that would happen in Saudi Arabia

It's actually very common for straight couples who live together.  This is how me and my 'wife' are 'married.'


I was talking about the whole forced marriage aspect. I understand that common law marriages are pretty common anymore; but, actually forcing two people to get married? That's not cool.
 
2014-02-17 05:36:31 PM  

fusillade762: Yakk: What the hell? Do people want this?

If they had a civil union why wouldn't they want marriage? If you can dodge a wrench penis you can dodge a ball.


FTFY.
 
2014-02-17 05:37:33 PM  

iheartscotch: Kittypie070: iheartscotch: Why would you do that? Sentence happy, marriageless people to a life of sexless misery?

Payback is a biatch.

I predict that this will get out of control; with only lawyers profiting from this.


jaypgreene.files.wordpress.com

Shares your concern.
 
2014-02-17 05:40:17 PM  

Yakk: What the hell? Do people want this?


I imagine a lot of people would. The laws with civil unions were pretty complicated due to having to be setup separately from marriage laws. The article seems to be suggesting a lot of people are going to be upset about this because of not being able to get their civil unions dissolved. So it seems like the legislation suggested may have made the mistake of not considering how awkward it was for some to get rid of these civil unions and think it'd just be easier for the legal system to just think of them as marriages since that was the original idea of them in the first place.
 
2014-02-17 05:41:36 PM  
Will heterosexual couples who have domestic partnerships have their unions converted to homosexual marriages?
 
2014-02-17 05:41:50 PM  




www.yellow5.com

 
2014-02-17 05:41:56 PM  

CaliNJGuy: Liberals don't care what you do as long as it's mandatory


Like trans-vaginal ultrasounds?
 
2014-02-17 05:42:40 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Yakk: What the hell? Do people want this?

That's never been a priority of Washington politicians.  Just look at the vote for Safeco Field.


And the Kingdome before that.
 
2014-02-17 05:44:44 PM  

fusillade762: CaliNJGuy: Liberals don't care what you do as long as it's mandatory

Like trans-vaginal ultrasounds?


I wonder if Mandatory Trans-Vaginal Ultrasounds is already a band name....

/ besides, a woman's body has ways of shutting down mandatory trans-vaginal ultrasounds
 
2014-02-17 05:45:01 PM  

Kuta: Will heterosexual couples who have domestic partnerships have their unions converted to homosexual marriages?


Yes. I traded in my girlfriend for a Malaysian rent boy last week in order to comply with this new law.

It's cool, though, really. Akmal is actually a better cook than Heather was.
 
2014-02-17 05:45:31 PM  
We go now live to Washington state's gay couples for a reaction. Couples?

Spouse #1: YAAAAAY!!!

Spouse #2: What the--but you said they'd never-- Um, yaaaaaay.
 
2014-02-17 05:46:55 PM  

hardinparamedic: Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples.


With the guns that we'll confiscate from them with our black helicopters, no less! Mwahahahaha!
 
2014-02-17 05:47:01 PM  
I now pronounce you Yogi and Boo Boo. You may kiss the bear.

queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2014-02-17 05:47:32 PM  
Hey, I know, let's get the government involved in sanctioning personal relationships!  What could possibly go wrong?
 
2014-02-17 05:48:20 PM  

CaliNJGuy: Liberals don't care what you do as long as it's mandatory


Yeah, and conservatives don't care what you do as long as it's mandatory.
 
2014-02-17 05:48:55 PM  

Kuta: Will heterosexual couples who have domestic partnerships have their unions converted to homosexual marriages?


Sorry, no. You will be auto-gay married. I suggest you go to Capitol Hill quickly to pick out a good one. If you're lucky, you may have time to place an ad in The Stranger. But unless you have a recent haircut and washboard abs, time is not on your side.
 
2014-02-17 05:49:51 PM  
I'd be pissed. I know this might sound crazy but marriage in our culture carries far to many religious overtones and I want no involvement with it. Obviously people who are non religious get married but for me it feels like if i get married I am somehow giving credit to religion which is something I refuse to do. I don't judge others for doing it and I love a good wedding but it's not something that I'd ever do.

/Common-law
//All the same benefits
///Just don't call me married
 
2014-02-17 05:50:32 PM  

Notabunny: Kuta: Will heterosexual couples who have domestic partnerships have their unions converted to homosexual marriages?

Sorry, no. You will be auto-gay married. I suggest you go to Capitol Hill quickly to pick out a good one. If you're lucky, you may have time to place an ad in The Stranger. But unless you have a recent haircut and washboard abs, time is not on your side.


GET TO TEH CHOPPAH!!!
 
2014-02-17 05:52:55 PM  

skinink: I now pronounce you Yogi and Boo Boo. You may kiss the bear.


My vomit phone you pay me new phone,
 
2014-02-17 05:53:45 PM  

skinink: I now pronounce you Yogi and Boo Boo. You may kiss the bear.


I wonder if those two guys know they're the internet face of Beardom?
 
2014-02-17 05:54:23 PM  

insertdip: I'd be pissed. I know this might sound crazy but marriage in our culture carries far to many religious overtones and I want no involvement with it. Obviously people who are non religious get married but for me it feels like if i get married I am somehow giving credit to religion which is something I refuse to do. I don't judge others for doing it and I love a good wedding but it's not something that I'd ever do.

/Common-law
//All the same benefits
///Just don't call me married


Oh, God bless your heart
 
2014-02-17 05:55:21 PM  

iheartscotch: I'm actually surprised that they worded the bill the way they did. Technically, if you've lived with your roommate long enough; congratulations! You're married!


All it is is that they're doing away with their outdated civil union/domestic partnership thing in the light that gays can now get actually married and converting the civil unions over to marriages.

Basically, they're just going to go through their records and cross out "Domestic Partnership" at the top and write in "Marriage" since they're already essentially synonymous, but some people had a problem with calling it what it was to begin with.
 
2014-02-17 05:55:24 PM  

insertdip: I'd be pissed. I know this might sound crazy but marriage in our culture carries far to many religious overtones and I want no involvement with it. Obviously people who are non religious get married but for me it feels like if i get married I am somehow giving credit to religion which is something I refuse to do. I don't judge others for doing it and I love a good wedding but it's not something that I'd ever do.

/Common-law
//All the same benefits
///Just don't call me married


That's stupid. You can always get married in the US without having anything to do with a church. So religious fanatics tell you something and you believe it because they have an agenda? Well you are a fool!

 
2014-02-17 05:56:13 PM  

hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!


-Rear Admiral Rocco Bearstein

www.bungonia.com.au
 
2014-02-17 05:56:27 PM  

Notabunny: Kuta: Will heterosexual couples who have domestic partnerships have their unions converted to homosexual marriages?

Sorry, no. You will be auto-gay married. I suggest you go to Capitol Hill quickly to pick out a good one. If you're lucky, you may have time to place an ad in The Stranger. But unless you have a recent haircut and washboard abs, time is not on your side.


If you're female, bring a Nalgene water bottle.  Some flannel wouldn't hurt your chances, either.

/Which reminds me: Pandora has apparently decided I'm lesbian, based on the number of Tegan and Sarah tracks it keeps throwing at me.

//That's what I get for giving indigo girls tracks thumbs up.
 
2014-02-17 05:56:28 PM  

insertdip: /Common-law


It's called Common-law MARRIAGE and it has nothing to do with a church.

You seem to really have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2014-02-17 05:56:40 PM  

iheartscotch: hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm actually surprised that they worded the bill the way they did. Technically, if you've lived with your roommate long enough; congratulations! You're married!


Man, you really can't read, can you? The way the law is worded, you are affected only if you have the government-sponsored contract (domestic partnership) that was made available to gay people because they couldn't legally get married. They're just changing the name of it to a marriage license. This doesn't affect people in "common-law" relationships in the slightest. The only straight people who could get on the domestic partner registry were old people, so that they wouldn't lose Social Security benefits by getting married.
 
2014-02-17 05:57:35 PM  
Solution: Go be gay somewhere else.
 
2014-02-17 05:57:43 PM  

ransack.: skinink: I now pronounce you Yogi and Boo Boo. You may kiss the bear.

My vomit phone you pay me new phone,


If you vomit when seeing a gay couple, but you don't vomit when you see this picture, you have no case, you perverted bigot.  :)

wackymania.com
 
2014-02-17 05:59:11 PM  

skinink: I now pronounce you Yogi and Boo Boo. You may kiss the bear.

[queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com image 533x558]


Ever notice that when you're browsing Fark in public, you somehow manage to scroll to the impossibly gay or borderline pornographic images at the EXACT moment someone appears behind you?
 
2014-02-17 05:59:47 PM  

doglover: hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

-Rear Admiral Rocco Bearstein

www.bungonia.com.au image 850x637

doglover: hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

-Rear Admiral Rocco Bearstein

[www.bungonia.com.au image 850x637]


Bea Arthur was looking a bit rough in her final years.
 
2014-02-17 06:00:39 PM  

insertdip: I'd be pissed. I know this might sound crazy but marriage in our culture carries far to many religious overtones and I want no involvement with it. Obviously people who are non religious get married but for me it feels like if i get married I am somehow giving credit to religion which is something I refuse to do. I don't judge others for doing it and I love a good wedding but it's not something that I'd ever do.

/Common-law
//All the same benefits
///Just don't call me married


You have no idea what you're talking about. "Common-law" relationships without a marriage license qualify for NO federal benefits. You want the married tax status, you get married, full stop. State benefits vary by state, but most states don't recognize "common-law" relationships for legal purposes. No automatic inheritance, medical rights, nothing. You don't have to have a church wedding to be married; you just go down to the courthouse and a justice of the peace signs the license.
 
2014-02-17 06:00:56 PM  

FlyinS: Next on the gay agenda - watching the Olympic ice dancing finals.


It's going to be mandatory, dude. If you're not watching it, Johnny Weir will come to your house and stamp his foot until you put it on.  And you will like, too!
 
2014-02-17 06:01:11 PM  

mbillips: This doesn't affect people in "common-law" relationships in the slightest.


It's common law MARRIAGE. It's identical to marriage in eyes of the law. Pretending it's not marriage is just not true.

In fact in common law MARRIAGE you must say you are MARRIED or it doesn't make you married. So saying it's not marriage is BS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

 Common law marriage differs from statutory marriage as follows:

There is no marriage license issued by a government and no marriage certificate filed with a government
There is no formal ceremony to solemnize the marriage before witnesses
The parties must hold themselves out to the world as husband and wife (this is not a requirement of statutory marriage)
Most jurisdictions require the parties to be cohabiting at the time the common law marriage is formed. Some require cohabitation to last a certain length of time (e.g. three years) for the marriage to be valid. But cohabitation alone does not create a marriage. The parties must intend their relationship to be, and to be regarded as, a legally valid marriage.

So to say in a Common-law relationship your not "married" is BS because that is one thing you actually have to do for your common law marriage to be recognized.
 
2014-02-17 06:02:04 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: ransack.: skinink: I now pronounce you Yogi and Boo Boo. You may kiss the bear.

My vomit phone you pay me new phone,

If you vomit when seeing a gay couple, but you don't vomit when you see this picture, you have no case, you perverted bigot.  :)


2.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com




PLEASE STOP WHY
 
2014-02-17 06:03:22 PM  

zimbomba63: FlyinS: Next on the gay agenda - watching the Olympic ice dancing finals.

It's going to be mandatory, dude. If you're not watching it, Johnny Weir will come to your house and stamp his foot until you put it on.  And you will like, too!


Can I watch the 2 man luge instead?
 
2014-02-17 06:06:11 PM  

mbillips: iheartscotch: hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm actually surprised that they worded the bill the way they did. Technically, if you've lived with your roommate long enough; congratulations! You're married!

Man, you really can't read, can you? The way the law is worded, you are affected only if you have the government-sponsored contract (domestic partnership) that was made available to gay people because they couldn't legally get married. They're just changing the name of it to a marriage license. This doesn't affect people in "common-law" relationships in the slightest. The only straight people who could get on the domestic partner registry were old people, so that they wouldn't lose Social Security benefits by getting married.


I do have dyslexia, there is that.

Plus, I didn't know that Washington didn't do common law marriages. I figured that everybody did that.

/ but, I still don't think that automatically converting all the civil unions to marriages is cool.
 
2014-02-17 06:06:41 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: ransack.: skinink: I now pronounce you Yogi and Boo Boo. You may kiss the bear.

My vomit phone you pay me new phone,

If you vomit when seeing a gay couple, but you don't vomit when you see this picture, you have no case, you perverted bigot.  :)

[wackymania.com image 600x575]


I don't vomit when I see a gay couple, not even a lemon party, but that? Can I vomit at that? I'm not askin you, I'm tellin a. Hork's away.
 
2014-02-17 06:08:18 PM  

ciberido: Notabunny: Kuta: Will heterosexual couples who have domestic partnerships have their unions converted to homosexual marriages?

Sorry, no. You will be auto-gay married. I suggest you go to Capitol Hill quickly to pick out a good one. If you're lucky, you may have time to place an ad in The Stranger. But unless you have a recent haircut and washboard abs, time is not on your side.

If you're female, bring a Nalgene water bottle.  Some flannel wouldn't hurt your chances, either.

/Which reminds me: Pandora has apparently decided I'm lesbian, based on the number of Tegan and Sarah tracks it keeps throwing at me.

//That's what I get for giving indigo girls tracks thumbs up.


I'll bring the bite-sized glow sticks! Is it still Tuesdays in the U-district? Unz!Unz!Unz!Unz!Unz!Unz!
/my lawn
//dance on it
 
2014-02-17 06:10:40 PM  

iheartscotch: Plus, I didn't know that Washington didn't do common law marriages. I figured that everybody did that.


Georgia stopped doing them because "OMG GAYS"
 
2014-02-17 06:12:00 PM  
img.fark.net
Who's the third guy in the back, licking the front guy's ear with his big red tongue? The NSA?
 
2014-02-17 06:12:08 PM  

doglover: hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

-Rear Admiral Rocco Bearstein

[www.bungonia.com.au image 850x637]


"Shiver my timber, matey."
 
2014-02-17 06:13:06 PM  
Oh thank GOD. I've been trying to avoid paying for a damn wedding for my lovely drama QUEEN. This is the perfect way.

/don't click my profile
//it would ruin the joke
 
2014-02-17 06:13:47 PM  

Corvus: mbillips: This doesn't affect people in "common-law" relationships in the slightest.

It's common law MARRIAGE. It's identical to marriage in eyes of the law. Pretending it's not marriage is just not true.

In fact in common law MARRIAGE you must say you are MARRIED or it doesn't make you married. So saying it's not marriage is BS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

 Common law marriage differs from statutory marriage as follows:

There is no marriage license issued by a government and no marriage certificate filed with a government
There is no formal ceremony to solemnize the marriage before witnesses
The parties must hold themselves out to the world as husband and wife (this is not a requirement of statutory marriage)
Most jurisdictions require the parties to be cohabiting at the time the common law marriage is formed. Some require cohabitation to last a certain length of time (e.g. three years) for the marriage to be valid. But cohabitation alone does not create a marriage. The parties must intend their relationship to be, and to be regarded as, a legally valid marriage.

So to say in a Common-law relationship your not "married" is BS because that is one thing you actually have to do for your common law marriage to be recognized.


Common-law "marriages" can still be contracted in only nine U.S. states. If you happen to be in one of those backwards yokel holes, then, yeah, you're married. But in the civilized part of the country, that's not an option.

/Yes, that was a specific fark you to Texas, what of it?
 
2014-02-17 06:14:22 PM  

BitwiseShift: Who's the third guy in the back, licking the front guy's ear with his big red tongue? The NSA?


I think those two guys are brothers. They look so goddamn like the same person
 
2014-02-17 06:15:56 PM  

iheartscotch: Why would you do that? Sentence happy, marriageless people to a life of sexless misery?


Not familiar with the phenomenon of lesbian bed death, eh?
 
2014-02-17 06:16:00 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: Hey, I know, let's get the government involved in sanctioning personal relationships!  What could possibly go wrong?


I think you might want to sit down for this, I have some news for you...
 
2014-02-17 06:17:41 PM  

fusillade762: Man On Pink Corner: Hey, I know, let's get the government involved in sanctioning personal relationships!  What could possibly go wrong?

I think you might want to sit down for this, I have some news for you...


Out with it, man! My turtle is nervous!
 
2014-02-17 06:20:48 PM  

iheartscotch: mbillips: iheartscotch: hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm actually surprised that they worded the bill the way they did. Technically, if you've lived with your roommate long enough; congratulations! You're married!

Man, you really can't read, can you? The way the law is worded, you are affected only if you have the government-sponsored contract (domestic partnership) that was made available to gay people because they couldn't legally get married. They're just changing the name of it to a marriage license. This doesn't affect people in "common-law" relationships in the slightest. The only straight people who could get on the domestic partner registry were old people, so that they wouldn't lose Social Security benefits by getting married.

I do have dyslexia, there is that.

Plus, I didn't know that Washington didn't do common law marriages. I figured that everybody did that.

/ but, I still don't think that automatically converting all the civil unions to marriages is cool.


Screw that. If you want the government benefits of marriage (which is a legal contract intended to benefit society through the creation of families), then you get married. It's not any different from a civil union except in name. The only reason Washington HAD civil unions was because people there seven years ago went, "Ew! Gay marriage! Gross!" And now they've gotten over it.
 
2014-02-17 06:22:09 PM  

Tom_Slick: zimbomba63: FlyinS: Next on the gay agenda - watching the Olympic ice dancing finals.

It's going to be mandatory, dude. If you're not watching it, Johnny Weir will come to your house and stamp his foot until you put it on.  And you will like, too!

Can I watch the 2 man luge instead?


Cue the "Why not both?" girl.

Fun Fact: The Washington law actually mentioned that 2 man luge teams are automatically married, because...you know, those tight suits and the stuff they do.
 
2014-02-17 06:24:10 PM  

hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Well, I'm bi, do I still get forced?  Because if so, I'll take a bear with his own nipple clamps please.
 
2014-02-17 06:24:18 PM  

hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!


I'm just happy you'll finally get to make an honest man out of that paramedic you've been hard in all this time.
 
2014-02-17 06:25:47 PM  

semiotix: hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm just happy you'll finally get to make an honest man out of that paramedic you've been hard in all this time.


I thought he was engaged to a filly
 
2014-02-17 06:26:42 PM  

iheartscotch: fusillade762: CaliNJGuy: Liberals don't care what you do as long as it's mandatory

Like trans-vaginal ultrasounds?

I wonder if Mandatory Trans-Vaginal Ultrasounds is already a band name....

I think "Trans-Virginia Ultrasounds" would work better, somehow.

 
2014-02-17 06:27:13 PM  

Mad_Radhu: iheartscotch: Why would you do that? Sentence happy, marriageless people to a life of sexless misery?

Not familiar with the phenomenon of lesbian bed death, eh?


Dude, Lesbian Bed Death rocks!  I saw them at CBGB back in the old days.
 
2014-02-17 06:27:48 PM  

CZMisfitsFan: hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Well, I'm bi, do I still get forced?  Because if so, I'll take a bear with his own nipple clamps please.


Are you a bi (horndog) woman? Or a bi (gay) man? Either way, you get a random assignment of someone of your sex. Accessories are extra.
 
2014-02-17 06:29:25 PM  
Better get your bro-mate lined up now before the rush.

Or you might get stuck with "Rush".
 
2014-02-17 06:30:12 PM  
Dibs on Richard Sherman.
 
2014-02-17 06:32:58 PM  

insertdip: I'd be pissed. I know this might sound crazy but marriage in our culture carries far to many religious overtones and I want no involvement with it. Obviously people who are non religious get married but for me it feels like if i get married I am somehow giving credit to religion which is something I refuse to do. I don't judge others for doing it and I love a good wedding but it's not something that I'd ever do.

/Common-law
//All the same benefits
///Just don't call me married


Marriage in America is strictly between the couple and the state. Even if you get married in a church, it's not a legal marriage without a state-issued marriage license. You can get married with no ceremony apart from getting said marriage license and swearing before a justice of the peace that you want to get married. It's too bad that religion has co-opted marriage to the point that it's perceived as a covenant with God. Fortunately, Las Vegas has taken tremendous strides to remedy that misconception.
 
2014-02-17 06:39:23 PM  

iheartscotch: hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm actually surprised that they worded the bill the way they did. Technically, if you've lived with your roommate long enough; congratulations! You're married!


That isn't how it works.  Reading is hard.  Allow me.  IF YOU REGISTERED A DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP, you are about to be legally married instead.

This isn't a common law marriage thing, although Washington has that too.  This is not that, and it's not as simple as you seem think it is.
 
2014-02-17 06:41:17 PM  

a particular individual: insertdip: I'd be pissed. I know this might sound crazy but marriage in our culture carries far to many religious overtones and I want no involvement with it. Obviously people who are non religious get married but for me it feels like if i get married I am somehow giving credit to religion which is something I refuse to do. I don't judge others for doing it and I love a good wedding but it's not something that I'd ever do.

/Common-law
//All the same benefits
///Just don't call me married

Marriage in America is strictly between the couple and the state. Even if you get married in a church, it's not a legal marriage without a state-issued marriage license. You can get married with no ceremony apart from getting said marriage license and swearing before a justice of the peace that you want to get married. It's too bad that religion has co-opted marriage to the point that it's perceived as a covenant with God. Fortunately, Las Vegas has taken tremendous strides to remedy that misconception.


Read the common-law marriage link up the thread. Not every state requires a piece of paper, although once they recognize your common-law marriage, it's EXACTLY like getting the marriage registered with a license (you can't dissolve the marriage without a formal divorce).
 
2014-02-17 06:42:10 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: ransack.: skinink: I now pronounce you Yogi and Boo Boo. You may kiss the bear.

My vomit phone you pay me new phone,

If you vomit when seeing a gay couple, but you don't vomit when you see this picture, you have no case, you perverted bigot.  :)

[wackymania.com image 600x575]


I didn't vomit for the 1st pic, but did for the 2nd...

//What does that make me?
 
2014-02-17 06:42:39 PM  
Why the FARK would they do that?

Dumbasses.
 
2014-02-17 06:44:20 PM  

Kahabut: iheartscotch: hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm actually surprised that they worded the bill the way they did. Technically, if you've lived with your roommate long enough; congratulations! You're married!

That isn't how it works.  Reading is hard.  Allow me.  IF YOU REGISTERED A DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP, you are about to be legally married instead.

This isn't a common law marriage thing, although Washington has that too.  This is not that, and it's not as simple as you seem think it is.


Washington does not have common-law marriage. Only Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Utah, Texas and the District of Columbia do. New Hampshire recognizes common-law relationships only for probate purposes, and Utah requires them to be validated by a court order.
 
2014-02-17 06:44:55 PM  

Notabunny: fusillade762: Man On Pink Corner: Hey, I know, let's get the government involved in sanctioning personal relationships!  What could possibly go wrong?

I think you might want to sit down for this, I have some news for you...

Out with it, man! My turtle is nervous!


It's not turtles you have to worry about.  We were warned about the ducks.
 
2014-02-17 06:49:17 PM  
But when will I be forced to marry my pets?
Because, um, I'm being pretty patient here, but... hurry up, okay?
 
2014-02-17 06:50:44 PM  

umad: Washington doesn't have common-law marriage IIRC (thank FSM).


Not by that name, true, but if "the court decides that you've had a stable, "marriage-like" relationship, it can make a "fair and equitable" division of certain types of property and debts acquired during your relationship."
Source: http://www.washingtonlawhelp.org/resource/washington-property-law-for - unmarried-couples

Short version? You're boned.
 
2014-02-17 06:51:02 PM  

Mad_Radhu: iheartscotch: Why would you do that? Sentence happy, marriageless people to a life of sexless misery?

Not familiar with the phenomenon of lesbian bed death, eh?


I'm familiar with the fact it's essentially a myth.
 
2014-02-17 06:52:19 PM  

mbillips: Common-law "marriages" can still be contracted in only nine U.S. states.


and Washington

// D.C.
 
2014-02-17 06:52:48 PM  

iheartscotch: Why would you do that? Sentence happy, marriageless people to a life of sexless misery?


It's a plot to end gay sex
 
2014-02-17 06:53:46 PM  
I see some alimony grabbing a few years in the offing.
 
2014-02-17 06:53:54 PM  

Stone Meadow: umad: Washington doesn't have common-law marriage IIRC (thank FSM).

Not by that name, true, but if "the court decides that you've had a stable, "marriage-like" relationship, it can make a "fair and equitable" division of certain types of property and debts acquired during your relationship."
Source: http://www.washingtonlawhelp.org/resource/washington-property-law-for - unmarried-couples

Short version? You're boned.


That's palimony. Not the same thing. But yeah, you live with someone and share your assets, that can wind up in court.
 
2014-02-17 06:59:03 PM  
I have a cold, so I'm a little off my game today but that sounds like the stupidest law ever enacted. Whatever happened to freedom of will and freedom of choice?

Wouldn't it have been much simpler to simply say: 'You all can now marry like straight folks and enjoy all the misery involved like the rest of us'? Those not wanting the expense of a wedding could simply go to a justice of the peace with a marriage license.

It sounds like a victory for Gays, yet it's kind of like a spiteful smack in the face. Kind of like 'Ya wanna be married? OK, fine! Now any of you living together are legally married -- so STFU!'
 
2014-02-17 06:59:36 PM  
LULz....this should be epic
 
2014-02-17 07:00:30 PM  
No word yet if there is a divorce epidemic amongst these same-gender marriages.
 
2014-02-17 07:01:41 PM  
Is this good or bad?
/supports same sex marriage
 
2014-02-17 07:07:54 PM  
ninjamonkey.us
 
2014-02-17 07:08:14 PM  
Imma marry a chair!
 
2014-02-17 07:08:43 PM  

mbillips: Corvus: mbillips: This doesn't affect people in "common-law" relationships in the slightest.

It's common law MARRIAGE. It's identical to marriage in eyes of the law. Pretending it's not marriage is just not true.

In fact in common law MARRIAGE you must say you are MARRIED or it doesn't make you married. So saying it's not marriage is BS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

 Common law marriage differs from statutory marriage as follows:

There is no marriage license issued by a government and no marriage certificate filed with a government
There is no formal ceremony to solemnize the marriage before witnesses
The parties must hold themselves out to the world as husband and wife (this is not a requirement of statutory marriage)
Most jurisdictions require the parties to be cohabiting at the time the common law marriage is formed. Some require cohabitation to last a certain length of time (e.g. three years) for the marriage to be valid. But cohabitation alone does not create a marriage. The parties must intend their relationship to be, and to be regarded as, a legally valid marriage.

So to say in a Common-law relationship your not "married" is BS because that is one thing you actually have to do for your common law marriage to be recognized.

Common-law "marriages" can still be contracted in only nine U.S. states. If you happen to be in one of those backwards yokel holes, then, yeah, you're married. But in the civilized part of the country, that's not an option.

/Yes, that was a specific fark you to Texas, what of it?


I don't get your point. Just because it can only happen in 9 states doesn't change it's definition.
 
2014-02-17 07:09:19 PM  

mbillips: insertdip: I'd be pissed. I know this might sound crazy but marriage in our culture carries far to many religious overtones and I want no involvement with it. Obviously people who are non religious get married but for me it feels like if i get married I am somehow giving credit to religion which is something I refuse to do. I don't judge others for doing it and I love a good wedding but it's not something that I'd ever do.

/Common-law
//All the same benefits
///Just don't call me married

You have no idea what you're talking about. "Common-law" relationships without a marriage license qualify for NO federal benefits. You want the married tax status, you get married, full stop. State benefits vary by state, but most states don't recognize "common-law" relationships for legal purposes. No automatic inheritance, medical rights, nothing. You don't have to have a church wedding to be married; you just go down to the courthouse and a justice of the peace signs the license.


Buddy, I'm in Canada and I enjoy all the benefits of marriage without being married. You have no idea what you are talking about. You do realize that people outside of America use this site, right? Also, you would have to be an idiot to not know you can get married outside of the church. That doesn't change the fact that getting married still lends credibility to organized religions. It's the same as someone who doesn't go to church, doesn't read the bible, knows virtually nothing about religion, but wears a cross necklace and tells people they're catholic or some sh*t. I can't stand that.
 
2014-02-17 07:09:25 PM  

mbillips: Stone Meadow: umad: Washington doesn't have common-law marriage IIRC (thank FSM).

Not by that name, true, but if "the court decides that you've had a stable, "marriage-like" relationship, it can make a "fair and equitable" division of certain types of property and debts acquired during your relationship."
Source: http://www.washingtonlawhelp.org/resource/washington-property-law-for - unmarried-couples

Short version? You're boned.

That's palimony. Not the same thing. But yeah, you live with someone and share your assets, that can wind up in court.


I don't have a GED in law, but the website specifically addresses the division of assets and debts, which doesn't sound at all like palimony, which I see defined as 'alimony for unmarried couples who break up'.
 
2014-02-17 07:12:21 PM  

Rik01: I have a cold, so I'm a little off my game today but that sounds like the stupidest law ever enacted. Whatever happened to freedom of will and freedom of choice?

Wouldn't it have been much simpler to simply say: 'You all can now marry like straight folks and enjoy all the misery involved like the rest of us'? Those not wanting the expense of a wedding could simply go to a justice of the peace with a marriage license.

It sounds like a victory for Gays, yet it's kind of like a spiteful smack in the face. Kind of like 'Ya wanna be married? OK, fine! Now any of you living together are legally married -- so STFU!'


No, it just says that those couples that have domestic partnerships that haven't been married since it was legal to, or who haven't dissolved their domestic partnership will have their status changed from "domestic partnership" to "married".  This effectively puts gay marriage on the same level as straight marriage.  If you don't want to be married, then you need to legally dissolve your domestic partnership, the same way straight folks have to get divorced.
 
2014-02-17 07:15:39 PM  

Corvus: insertdip: /Common-law

It's called Common-law MARRIAGE and it has nothing to do with a church.

You seem to really have no idea what you're talking about.


Maybe it's a Canadian thing but in no paperwork that I signed for Common-law refer to it as common-law marriage. I have never seen a single government form on me referring to me as common-law married. Everything I have ever seen simple states Common-law. I know it is semantics but whatever.

/Common-law
//Not married
 
2014-02-17 07:17:28 PM  

mbillips: Kahabut: iheartscotch: hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm actually surprised that they worded the bill the way they did. Technically, if you've lived with your roommate long enough; congratulations! You're married!

That isn't how it works.  Reading is hard.  Allow me.  IF YOU REGISTERED A DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP, you are about to be legally married instead.

This isn't a common law marriage thing, although Washington has that too.  This is not that, and it's not as simple as you seem think it is.

Washington does not have common-law marriage. Only Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Utah, Texas and the District of Columbia do. New Hampshire recognizes common-law relationships only for probate purposes, and Utah requires them to be validated by a court order.


Stone Meadow: umad: Washington doesn't have common-law marriage IIRC (thank FSM).

Not by that name, true, but if "the court decides that you've had a stable, "marriage-like" relationship, it can make a "fair and equitable" division of certain types of property and debts acquired during your relationship."
Source: http://www.washingtonlawhelp.org/resource/washington-property-law-for - unmarried-couples

Short version? You're boned.


^THIS

Having lived in Washington, unmarried, and having the majority of my stuff taken under "not-common-law marriage" laws, you're basically playing a semantics game.
 
2014-02-17 07:18:42 PM  

ciberido: Mad_Radhu: iheartscotch: Why would you do that? Sentence happy, marriageless people to a life of sexless misery?

Not familiar with the phenomenon of lesbian bed death, eh?

I'm familiar with the fact it's essentially a myth.

BUT WHY TAKE THE RISK?


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-17 07:24:24 PM  
What's the problem? Now they'll be as miserable as the rest of us. They wanted it, for some reason.
 
2014-02-17 07:24:46 PM  

Rik01: I have a cold, so I'm a little off my game today but that sounds like the stupidest law ever enacted. Whatever happened to freedom of will and freedom of choice?

Wouldn't it have been much simpler to simply say: 'You all can now marry like straight folks and enjoy all the misery involved like the rest of us'? Those not wanting the expense of a wedding could simply go to a justice of the peace with a marriage license.

It sounds like a victory for Gays, yet it's kind of like a spiteful smack in the face. Kind of like 'Ya wanna be married? OK, fine! Now any of you living together are legally married -- so STFU!'


Let's be VERY clear about what domestic partnership in WA meant.  It was a "you want to get married but can't, so we'll throw you a bone that has all the state legal ramifications of marriage, but isn't called that" thing.

It was, for all intents and purposes, marriage without the name.

It's ceasing to exist.

Dissolving those partnerships isn't the appropriate thing to do.  They're legally already the equivalent of marriage.  To dissolve one, you've got to essentially have a divorce.

So they're really just changing the name.  And in the process, giving them federal recognition as well as state recognition.
 
2014-02-17 07:27:19 PM  

insertdip: Corvus: insertdip: /Common-law

It's called Common-law MARRIAGE and it has nothing to do with a church.

You seem to really have no idea what you're talking about.

Maybe it's a Canadian thing but in no paperwork that I signed for Common-law refer to it as common-law marriage. I have never seen a single government form on me referring to me as common-law married. Everything I have ever seen simple states Common-law. I know it is semantics but whatever.

/Common-law
//Not married


The rules are likely somewhat different up in Canada.  I think common-law marriage rules stem from "frontier" situations, where access to secular or ecclesiastical authorities might have been limited back in the days of covered wagons and/or stolen brides from local tribes.

If it's been three years since you last saw a Justice of the Peace or a parson and you already have two children, it's a bit late to get that certificate, isn't it?  But by all rights, the children should stand to inherit your axe and cabin when the wolves eat you.
 
2014-02-17 07:29:49 PM  
Get prepared to pay some palimony for common-law marriage!
 
2014-02-17 07:29:57 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Yakk: What the hell? Do people want this?

That's never been a priority of Washington politicians.  Just look at the vote for Safeco Field.


Its been HOW many years and I still vomit blood through over the fact that we built a stadium for the biggest losers in major league ball.


Great now I'm mad for the rest of the day.
 
gja
2014-02-17 07:31:45 PM  

iheartscotch: Why would you do that? Sentence happy, marriageless people to a life of sexless misery?


lh5.googleusercontent.com

"Misery all around......good"
 
2014-02-17 07:31:52 PM  
Good for Washington.
 
2014-02-17 07:32:31 PM  
OH CRAP!  I haven't even had my first straight marriage yet.  OH NOES!
 
2014-02-17 07:33:49 PM  

The_Sponge: OH CRAP!  I haven't even had my first straight marriage yet.  OH NOES!


static4.businessinsider.com
 
2014-02-17 07:34:35 PM  

meyerkev: iheartscotch: hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm actually surprised that they worded the bill the way they did. Technically, if you've lived with your roommate long enough; congratulations! You're married!

Yeah, that's common-law marriage.  Fairly standard.  That's how that biatch is going to steal the family house.  In another 2 years, she'll be "married", and then she can get divorced and take the house.

/Everyone knows it.
//Except the uncle who owns the house.
///*sigh


Marriage is a legal contract,  You cannot enter into a contract unless you voluntary sigh it.
 
2014-02-17 07:34:46 PM  
Hey Gays!
Just give us back the Rainbow and you can have all the gay marriage you want!!
 
2014-02-17 07:41:38 PM  
Warlordtrooper:

Marriage is a legal contract,  You cannot enter into a contract unless you voluntary sigh it.

Practices regarding child support fart in your general direction.  Penises can't hold pens to sign, but their ink has blotted many a checkbook.
 
2014-02-17 07:47:46 PM  

Warlordtrooper: meyerkev: iheartscotch: hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm actually surprised that they worded the bill the way they did. Technically, if you've lived with your roommate long enough; congratulations! You're married!

Yeah, that's common-law marriage.  Fairly standard.  That's how that biatch is going to steal the family house.  In another 2 years, she'll be "married", and then she can get divorced and take the house.

/Everyone knows it.
//Except the uncle who owns the house.
///*sigh

Marriage is a legal contract,  You cannot enter into a contract unless you voluntary sigh it.


You should tell that to the 9 states and DC, which still recognize common law marriage. SCOTUS will also need to be told since they confirmed it applied to any US state that hadn't ruled it out via statute.
 
gja
2014-02-17 07:48:08 PM  

Bonzo_1116: Warlordtrooper:

Marriage is a legal contract,  You cannot enter into a contract unless you voluntary sigh it.

Practices regarding child support fart in your general direction.  Penises can't hold pens to sign, but their ink has blotted many a checkbook.


LOL!

Also, War, my friend....look up COMMONLAW. You don't need to sign squat.

/my asshole buddy the family law lawyer is eating with me and is fist-pumping at this news
 
2014-02-17 07:49:08 PM  

ransack.: Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: ransack.: skinink: I now pronounce you Yogi and Boo Boo. You may kiss the bear.

My vomit phone you pay me new phone,

If you vomit when seeing a gay couple, but you don't vomit when you see this picture, you have no case, you perverted bigot.  :)

[2.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com image 300x225]


PLEASE STOP WHY


I had a girl friend in Vancouver that lived in a basement suite. Her room used to get really reeky in the summer whenever she opened the window. Turns out the dude in the suite above used to piss out his window every night. Pretty sick (but damned funny to me).
 
2014-02-17 07:55:09 PM  
media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com
Better grab some

img1.targetimg1.com

before it's sold out.

And ladies, make sure you ask your government appointed partner to start with the small one.

/Someone will totally run with it in a serious way.
//That already makes me sad.
 
2014-02-17 07:57:01 PM  

iheartscotch: Kittypie070: iheartscotch: Why would you do that? Sentence happy, marriageless people to a life of sexless misery?

Payback is a biatch.

I predict that this will get out of control; with only lawyers profiting from this.

/ why would you force two people to marry? It just doesn't make sense.

// unless, one of them is knocked up; and you happen to be the knocked up girl's dad


Because it is bullshiat.

Prior to allowing gay marriage, Washington created "registered domestic partnerships" which were substantively the same as marriage in order to get something like gay marriage passed.

It makes sense now that there is gay marriage, they fold the RDPs into marriages.

The biggest change is that the Federal government will recognize a marriage but not an RDP.
 
gja
2014-02-17 07:59:45 PM  

The Irresponsible Captain: [media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 720x400]
Better grab some

[img1.targetimg1.com image 410x410]

before it's sold out.

And ladies, make sure you ask your government appointed partner to start with the small one.

/Someone will totally run with it in a serious way.
//That already makes me sad.


You made me laugh. Loud AND snorty.
/have a month on me
 
2014-02-17 08:15:11 PM  
Vat a tvist!
 
2014-02-17 08:16:52 PM  

Bonzo_1116: The_Sponge: OH CRAP!  I haven't even had my first straight marriage yet.  OH NOES!

[static4.businessinsider.com image 491x363]



Hehehehehe.
 
2014-02-17 08:19:07 PM  
What, no gay engagement first?  Gay rehearsal dinner?  At least a gay gift registry?  Right?  Come on!
 
2014-02-17 08:23:15 PM  
Before gay marriage was allowed in parts of the UK, right wing rhetoric was that with the demolition of the biblical union of a man and a woman, it would suddenly be great for fathers to marry their sons for tax purposes.

One of the Tory grandees was the first person I saw proposing this notion. I want to say Lawson, but I may be wrong. But then, Jeremy Irons weighed in on the issue himself, making the exact same point.

Nobody needs to point out how lack-witted these idiots are; they do it for themselves.

/But, it's absolutely mind-boggling that an actor could be homophobic.
//Jeremy's Iron did attempt a backtrack on his idiotic comments: here.
///Third slashy is obligatory.
 
2014-02-17 08:23:31 PM  

meyerkev: iheartscotch: hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm actually surprised that they worded the bill the way they did. Technically, if you've lived with your roommate long enough; congratulations! You're married!

Yeah, that's common-law marriage.  Fairly standard.  That's how that biatch is going to steal the family house.  In another 2 years, she'll be "married", and then she can get divorced and take the house.

/Everyone knows it.
//Except the uncle who owns the house.
///*sigh*


In Texas, you can also get "common-law divorced", Stay away from that person for one full calendar year - no contact, no nothing. After a year they no longer have a claim on anything of yours, and you are no longer considered to be married by common-law
 
2014-02-17 08:24:02 PM  

meyerkev: iheartscotch: hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm actually surprised that they worded the bill the way they did. Technically, if you've lived with your roommate long enough; congratulations! You're married!

Yeah, that's common-law marriage.  Fairly standard.  That's how that biatch is going to steal the family house.  In another 2 years, she'll be "married", and then she can get divorced and take the house.

/Everyone knows it.
//Except the uncle who owns the house.
///*sigh*


In some states (most maybe) that is not at all how common law marriage works.
 
2014-02-17 08:25:32 PM  
If you cannot afford a same-sex partner, one will be assigned to you by the state.
 
2014-02-17 08:25:36 PM  

mbillips: insertdip: I'd be pissed. I know this might sound crazy but marriage in our culture carries far to many religious overtones and I want no involvement with it. Obviously people who are non religious get married but for me it feels like if i get married I am somehow giving credit to religion which is something I refuse to do. I don't judge others for doing it and I love a good wedding but it's not something that I'd ever do.

/Common-law
//All the same benefits
///Just don't call me married

You have no idea what you're talking about. "Common-law" relationships without a marriage license qualify for NO federal benefits. You want the married tax status, you get married, full stop. State benefits vary by state, but most states don't recognize "common-law" relationships for legal purposes. No automatic inheritance, medical rights, nothing. You don't have to have a church wedding to be married; you just go down to the courthouse and a justice of the peace signs the license.


Except, the Federal government and all state governments recognize a common law marriage if it began in a state that recognizes it (basically, if you resided in a state long enough and met the other requirements), with the exception of a homosexual common-law marriage in states that refuse to recognize holosexual marriages.

There are some differences, but they are essentially the same and you specifically can file a joint 1040.

The biggest issue is if it ever gets challenged in court. It is a lot easier to file a claim saying that two people were not really married under common-law than if they signed a marriage certificate.

And, no, you cannot accidentally become part of a common law marriage. Standard requirements are that a couple mutually consents to a common law marriage and/or that they publicly hold themselves to be in a common law marriage. Both of which can often be established by filing a joint tax return, when you both sign a document filed with the government that says you are married.

So, you won't accidentally find yourself married to your room-mate.
 
2014-02-17 08:29:12 PM  

ciberido: /Which reminds me: Pandora has apparently decided I'm lesbian, based on the number of Tegan and Sarah tracks it keeps throwing at me.//That's what I get for giving indigo girls tracks thumbs up.


Maybe you should confuse it by adding some thumbs up for some Lynyrd Skynyrd and Molly Hatchet songs
 
2014-02-17 08:31:19 PM  
My partner and I entered a civil union in Colorado shortly after they were legalized last year. We made it VERY casual (flashmob ceremony at Red Rocks, no gifts, pay-for-your-own lunch at Hamburger Mary's afterwards). We went into it with the explicit understanding that it was NOT a wedding, otherwise we would've made a bigger deal of it (pay a photographer, invite out-of-state family, etc.). We have grander plans that I only want to do after SSM officially goes nationwide.

If the State of Colorado were to tell us all of a sudden: "Uh, y'all are married now," I would have a problem with that.
 
2014-02-17 08:37:03 PM  

BolshyGreatYarblocks: I see some alimony grabbing a few years in the offing.


I've always thought this may be a motive in a minority of instances or a benefits ploy.
/Happens with all marriage "types" and green cards.
 
2014-02-17 08:37:25 PM  

insertdip: Corvus: insertdip: /Common-law

It's called Common-law MARRIAGE and it has nothing to do with a church.

You seem to really have no idea what you're talking about.

Maybe it's a Canadian thing but in no paperwork that I signed for Common-law refer to it as common-law marriage. I have never seen a single government form on me referring to me as common-law married. Everything I have ever seen simple states Common-law. I know it is semantics but whatever.

/Common-law
//Not married


Common law marriage varies from province to province. In BC it is identical to marriage (and defined by statute), in QC it doesn't exist, different Federal agencies have different definitions to receive various benefits (the CRA's is probably the easiest to meet). The implications of a common law marriage also vary between provinces.
 
2014-02-17 08:45:29 PM  

Stone Meadow: umad: Washington doesn't have common-law marriage IIRC (thank FSM).

Not by that name, true, but if "the court decides that you've had a stable, "marriage-like" relationship, it can make a "fair and equitable" division of certain types of property and debts acquired during your relationship."
Source: http://www.washingtonlawhelp.org/resource/washington-property-law-for - unmarried-couples

Short version? You're boned.


You just really bummed me out, but thanks for the info. Farking Christ I hate this state sometimes.
 
2014-02-17 08:46:43 PM  

theropod: My partner and I entered a civil union in Colorado shortly after they were legalized last year. We made it VERY casual (flashmob ceremony at Red Rocks, no gifts, pay-for-your-own lunch at Hamburger Mary's afterwards). We went into it with the explicit understanding that it was NOT a wedding, otherwise we would've made a bigger deal of it (pay a photographer, invite out-of-state family, etc.). We have grander plans that I only want to do after SSM officially goes nationwide.

If the State of Colorado were to tell us all of a sudden: "Uh, y'all are married now," I would have a problem with that.


You can always decide to hold a wedding when and if it suits you, regardless of whether the state considers you married.  While it's certainly traditional to hold a wedding at the same time the marriage begins, there have always been occasions when people decided to have one without the other, or to have both but at different times.
 
2014-02-17 08:47:00 PM  

theropod: My partner and I entered a civil union in Colorado shortly after they were legalized last year. We made it VERY casual (flashmob ceremony at Red Rocks, no gifts, pay-for-your-own lunch at Hamburger Mary's afterwards). We went into it with the explicit understanding that it was NOT a wedding, otherwise we would've made a bigger deal of it (pay a photographer, invite out-of-state family, etc.). We have grander plans that I only want to do after SSM officially goes nationwide.

If the State of Colorado were to tell us all of a sudden: "Uh, y'all are married now," I would have a problem with that.


Well, you're now on notice that it will probably happen.

Like Washington, you'll likely get a significant amount of notice before it does, so you'll have time to choose to either dissolve, get married, or wait until it becomes a marriage with no action needed on your part.
 
2014-02-17 08:50:17 PM  

gja: You made me laugh. Loud AND snorty.
/have a month on me


Thanks.
 
2014-02-17 08:52:47 PM  
how do you determine who's married and who's roommates?

that being said, this is just a way of marrying off homos so that they don't have to sully up the churches with their sinful love.
 
2014-02-17 08:53:02 PM  

iron de havilland: Before gay marriage was allowed in parts of the UK, right wing rhetoric was that with the demolition of the biblical union of a man and a woman, it would suddenly be great for fathers to marry their sons for tax purposes.

One of the Tory grandees was the first person I saw proposing this notion. I want to say Lawson, but I may be wrong. But then, Jeremy Irons weighed in on the issue himself, making the exact same point.

Nobody needs to point out how lack-witted these idiots are; they do it for themselves.

/But, it's absolutely mind-boggling that an actor could be homophobic.
//Jeremy's Iron did attempt a backtrack on his idiotic comments: here.
///Third slashy is obligatory.


I am pro gay marriage, but I think any co-habitating people should be able to get the benefits of "marriage", even if they are related. What would it hurt?
 
2014-02-17 08:55:08 PM  

umad: iron de havilland: Before gay marriage was allowed in parts of the UK, right wing rhetoric was that with the demolition of the biblical union of a man and a woman, it would suddenly be great for fathers to marry their sons for tax purposes.

One of the Tory grandees was the first person I saw proposing this notion. I want to say Lawson, but I may be wrong. But then, Jeremy Irons weighed in on the issue himself, making the exact same point.

Nobody needs to point out how lack-witted these idiots are; they do it for themselves.

/But, it's absolutely mind-boggling that an actor could be homophobic.
//Jeremy's Iron did attempt a backtrack on his idiotic comments: here.
///Third slashy is obligatory.

I am pro gay marriage, but I think any co-habitating people should be able to get the benefits of "marriage", even if they are related. What would it hurt?


Like father and daughter?
 
gja
2014-02-17 09:01:02 PM  

rkiller1: umad: iron de havilland: Before gay marriage was allowed in parts of the UK, right wing rhetoric was that with the demolition of the biblical union of a man and a woman, it would suddenly be great for fathers to marry their sons for tax purposes.

One of the Tory grandees was the first person I saw proposing this notion. I want to say Lawson, but I may be wrong. But then, Jeremy Irons weighed in on the issue himself, making the exact same point.

Nobody needs to point out how lack-witted these idiots are; they do it for themselves.

/But, it's absolutely mind-boggling that an actor could be homophobic.
//Jeremy's Iron did attempt a backtrack on his idiotic comments: here.
///Third slashy is obligatory.

I am pro gay marriage, but I think any co-habitating people should be able to get the benefits of "marriage", even if they are related. What would it hurt?

Like father and daughter?


www.fuj.cz

I'll just leave this here.......
 
2014-02-17 09:03:42 PM  

ciberido: Which reminds me: Pandora has apparently decided I'm lesbian awesome, based on the number of Tegan and Sarah tracks it keeps throwing at me.


FTFY, from a T&S fan.
 
2014-02-17 09:11:16 PM  

rkiller1: umad: iron de havilland: Before gay marriage was allowed in parts of the UK, right wing rhetoric was that with the demolition of the biblical union of a man and a woman, it would suddenly be great for fathers to marry their sons for tax purposes.

One of the Tory grandees was the first person I saw proposing this notion. I want to say Lawson, but I may be wrong. But then, Jeremy Irons weighed in on the issue himself, making the exact same point.

Nobody needs to point out how lack-witted these idiots are; they do it for themselves.

/But, it's absolutely mind-boggling that an actor could be homophobic.
//Jeremy's Iron did attempt a backtrack on his idiotic comments: here.
///Third slashy is obligatory.

I am pro gay marriage, but I think any co-habitating people should be able to get the benefits of "marriage", even if they are related. What would it hurt?

Like father and daughter?


Why not? If they want the tax breaks and shiat I say let them have it. It isn't like they would be having sex. They would be married after all.
 
2014-02-17 09:11:19 PM  
Slightly off-topic but I was wondering is there such a thing as common law divorce?
If two people are not living together or acting as a married couple for a period of time, are they divorced?
If not, why not?
 
2014-02-17 09:13:03 PM  

ciderczar: ciberido: Mad_Radhu: iheartscotch: Why would you do that? Sentence happy, marriageless people to a life of sexless misery?

Not familiar with the phenomenon of lesbian bed death, eh?


WTF is this, and no, I am NOT going to have that in my internet search history.
 
2014-02-17 09:13:40 PM  
Hey, the authorities need to make it really, really, super, duper official so they can know who to blame when things go awry. (and the state can make more money)

It's really simple, in WA state, gay or straight,(ha!) if the state knows about it,(the relationship) it's going to be made official if the same household is utilized by the couple because otherwise women are helpless against big bad men. Really.  That the past has wrought so many legitimately rotten men, now all men, good and bad are rolled into one in the eyes of the law because hey, what if good ol' Mitch down the road kicks Linda to the curb for no reason? Why should she suffer and go without shelter and money?

That's why.(Also, the courts make beaucoup bucks off each appearance-CASH COW) And guess what, now gays will have to deal with it, although I am not sure how the courts are going to decide which party to screw over because with men and women, it's the men that end up being painted as the bad "guys" in the theater that is the judicial system.

So as a guy I have a new rule and a simple one: Never have a woman move in with me and to make it clear that my home is my domain and not to be shared with anyone from any romantic relationship.

Sorry, babes, you can't ever take my damn house.

/almost never hear about bad gals
//it is a money issue not a gay issue
 
2014-02-17 09:15:45 PM  

rkiller1: umad: iron de havilland: Before gay marriage was allowed in parts of the UK, right wing rhetoric was that with the demolition of the biblical union of a man and a woman, it would suddenly be great for fathers to marry their sons for tax purposes.

One of the Tory grandees was the first person I saw proposing this notion. I want to say Lawson, but I may be wrong. But then, Jeremy Irons weighed in on the issue himself, making the exact same point.

Nobody needs to point out how lack-witted these idiots are; they do it for themselves.

/But, it's absolutely mind-boggling that an actor could be homophobic.
//Jeremy's Iron did attempt a backtrack on his idiotic comments: here.
///Third slashy is obligatory.

I am pro gay marriage, but I think any co-habitating people should be able to get the benefits of "marriage", even if they are related. What would it hurt?

Like father and daughter?


Exactly. The loonies on the right suggested that allowing the gays to marry would lead to fathers marrying their sons, while conveniently ignoring the fact that fathers marrying their daughters and mothers marrying their sons are, quite rightly, taboo.

But yet, they'd still consider marrying their children for cheaper taxes.
 
2014-02-17 09:23:03 PM  

DarkVader: theropod: My partner and I entered a civil union in Colorado shortly after they were legalized last year. We made it VERY casual (flashmob ceremony at Red Rocks, no gifts, pay-for-your-own lunch at Hamburger Mary's afterwards). We went into it with the explicit understanding that it was NOT a wedding, otherwise we would've made a bigger deal of it (pay a photographer, invite out-of-state family, etc.). We have grander plans that I only want to do after SSM officially goes nationwide.

If the State of Colorado were to tell us all of a sudden: "Uh, y'all are married now," I would have a problem with that.

Well, you're now on notice that it will probably happen.

Like Washington, you'll likely get a significant amount of notice before it does, so you'll have time to choose to either dissolve, get married, or wait until it becomes a marriage with no action needed on your part.


This, you should begin the conversations now.
 
2014-02-17 09:23:51 PM  

danno_to_infinity: ciderczar: ciberido: Mad_Radhu: iheartscotch: Why would you do that? Sentence happy, marriageless people to a life of sexless misery?

Not familiar with the phenomenon of lesbian bed death, eh?

WTF is this, and no, I am NOT going to have that in my internet search history.


Only with more comfortable shoes and tank tops.
 
2014-02-17 09:25:59 PM  

ciderczar: danno_to_infinity: ciderczar: ciberido: Mad_Radhu: iheartscotch: Why would you do that? Sentence happy, marriageless people to a life of sexless misery?

Not familiar with the phenomenon of lesbian bed death, eh?

WTF is this, and no, I am NOT going to have that in my internet search history.

Only with more comfortable shoes and tank tops.


This is what I meant.
 
2014-02-17 09:29:48 PM  
Isn't the joke "after a few years married, all sex is the same"
 
2014-02-17 09:31:31 PM  

insertdip: I know this might sound crazy but marriage in our culture carries far to many religious overtones and I want no involvement with it.


You're doing it wrong.  There's nothing inherently religious about the idea of marriage.  I can see how you might be made uncomfortable if you happen to be an atheist living in a very religious area of the US, and you're constantly bombarded by religious overtones, but trust me, there are plenty places you could move where you wouldn't feel that way.

Marriage is not a religious institution.  It's a civil one.  Always has been.

Corvus: It's called Common-law MARRIAGE and it has nothing to do with a church.


Actually, no.  He's in Canada, and Common Law partnerships are not usually considered marriages there.

He's also dead wrong about Common Law having all of the rights of marriage, especially if he's in Newfoundland, like his profile suggests.

umad: Washington doesn't have common-law marriage IIRC (thank FSM).


Very few states do, actually.

Kahabut: This isn't a common law marriage thing, although Washington has that too.


No, Washington does not contract common law marriages, and it never has.

mbillips: you can't dissolve the marriage without a formal divorce


No, in most places you can't get divorced if you have a common law marriage.  You have to petition the state directly to dissolve your contract, and it's much more difficult than getting a divorce.

Corvus: I don't get your point. Just because it can only happen in 9 states doesn't change it's definition.


Correct, and once your home state recognizes your common law marriage, all the other states and the fed do as well.

insertdip: Buddy, I'm in Canada and I enjoy all the benefits of marriage without being married.


Not if you contracted in Newfie-land, you don't.

Warlordtrooper: You cannot enter into a contract unless you voluntary sigh it.


waityou'reserious.jpg
 
2014-02-17 09:34:18 PM  

wildcardjack: Isn't the joke "after a few years married, all sex is the same in the past unless you impress the shiat out of some harpie who will only cheat on you anyways."


FTFM
 
2014-02-17 09:38:27 PM  

Farty McPooPants: Slightly off-topic but I was wondering is there such a thing as common law divorce?
If two people are not living together or acting as a married couple for a period of time, are they divorced?
If not, why not?


IANAL, but the short answer is, "it differs wildly from state to state".  The even shorter answer is "no, almost never".
On the other hand, the scenario you're describing would most likely carry with it a lot of grounds for divorce, even in states that don't have "no-fault".  If both parties are amenable to the divorce, and have lived apart for a year, it's pretty cheap and easy to dissolve your marriage.
 
2014-02-17 09:39:51 PM  

umad: Stone Meadow: umad: Washington doesn't have common-law marriage IIRC (thank FSM).

Not by that name, true, but if "the court decides that you've had a stable, "marriage-like" relationship, it can make a "fair and equitable" division of certain types of property and debts acquired during your relationship."
Source: http://www.washingtonlawhelp.org/resource/washington-property-law-for - unmarried-couples

Short version? You're boned.

You just really bummed me out, but thanks for the info. Farking Christ I hate this state sometimes.


Sorry about that, man. The only reason I knew about it is my brother's neighbor is going through that with is now-ex live-in gf. Fifteen acres on the water in Washington...she helped him make payments for like 17 years before they split, and now it's up for court monitored sale.
 
gja
2014-02-17 09:45:46 PM  

Z-clipped: insertdip: I know this might sound crazy but marriage in our culture carries far to many religious overtones and I want no involvement with it.

You're doing it wrong.  There's nothing inherently religious about the idea of marriage.  I can see how you might be made uncomfortable if you happen to be an atheist living in a very religious area of the US, and you're constantly bombarded by religious overtones, but trust me, there are plenty places you could move where you wouldn't feel that way.

Marriage is not a religious institution.  It's a civil one.  Always has been.

Corvus: It's called Common-law MARRIAGE and it has nothing to do with a church.

Actually, no.  He's in Canada, and Common Law partnerships are not usually considered marriages there.

He's also dead wrong about Common Law having all of the rights of marriage, especially if he's in Newfoundland, like his profile suggests.

umad: Washington doesn't have common-law marriage IIRC (thank FSM).

Very few states do, actually.

Kahabut: This isn't a common law marriage thing, although Washington has that too.

No, Washington does not contract common law marriages, and it never has.

mbillips: you can't dissolve the marriage without a formal divorce

No, in most places you can't get divorced if you have a common law marriage.  You have to petition the state directly to dissolve your contract, and it's much more difficult than getting a divorce.

Corvus: I don't get your point. Just because it can only happen in 9 states doesn't change it's definition.

Correct, and once your home state recognizes your common law marriage, all the other states and the fed do as well.

insertdip: Buddy, I'm in Canada and I enjoy all the benefits of marriage without being married.

Not if you contracted in Newfie-land, you don't.

Warlordtrooper: You cannot enter into a contract unless you voluntary sigh it.

waityou'reserious.jpg


AHEM:::
Currently, 10 states (Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah) as well as the District of Columbia allow common law marriages, and a NY common law marriage may be established if you were common law married in any of these jurisdictions.
Because Pennsylvania borders New York and allows common law marriage, the most common state for New York common law marriage to come from is Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania also has no specific requirements for how long a couple must cohabit to be considered common-law married, but instead just requires proof of cohabitation and a reputation of marriage, as well as evidence that both people committed to the marriage verbally.

TMYK
 
2014-02-17 09:57:23 PM  

Z-clipped: insertdip: I know this might sound crazy but marriage in our culture carries far to many religious overtones and I want no involvement with it.

You're doing it wrong.  There's nothing inherently religious about the idea of marriage.  I can see how you might be made uncomfortable if you happen to be an atheist living in a very religious area of the US, and you're constantly bombarded by religious overtones, but trust me, there are plenty places you could move where you wouldn't feel that way.

Marriage is not a religious institution.  It's a civil one.  Always has been.

Corvus: It's called Common-law MARRIAGE and it has nothing to do with a church.

Actually, no.  He's in Canada, and Common Law partnerships are not usually considered marriages there.

He's also dead wrong about Common Law having all of the rights of marriage, especially if he's in Newfoundland, like his profile suggests.

umad: Washington doesn't have common-law marriage IIRC (thank FSM).

Very few states do, actually.

Kahabut: This isn't a common law marriage thing, although Washington has that too.

No, Washington does not contract common law marriages, and it never has.

mbillips: you can't dissolve the marriage without a formal divorce

No, in most places you can't get divorced if you have a common law marriage.  You have to petition the state directly to dissolve your contract, and it's much more difficult than getting a divorce.

Corvus: I don't get your point. Just because it can only happen in 9 states doesn't change it's definition.

Correct, and once your home state recognizes your common law marriage, all the other states and the fed do as well.

insertdip: Buddy, I'm in Canada and I enjoy all the benefits of marriage without being married.

Not if you contracted in Newfie-land, you don't.

Warlordtrooper: You cannot enter into a contract unless you voluntary sigh it.

waityou'reserious.jpg


Yeah, not dead wrong. Profile out of date. I live in BC now. So yeah, I do have all the same benefits as a married person.
 
2014-02-17 09:59:42 PM  

Z-clipped: No, in most places you can't get divorced if you have a common law marriage.  You have to petition the state directly to dissolve your contract, and it's much more difficult than getting a divorce.



lolwut?
 
2014-02-17 10:01:14 PM  

iron de havilland: The loonies on the right suggested that allowing the gays to marry would lead to fathers marrying their sons, while conveniently ignoring the fact that fathers marrying their daughters and mothers marrying their sons are, quite rightly, taboo.

But yet, they'd still consider marrying their children for cheaper taxes.


You sound like you're on roll, just like when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-17 10:02:08 PM  

insertdip: I'd be pissed. I know this might sound crazy but marriage in our culture carries far to many religious overtones and I want no involvement with it. Obviously people who are non religious get married but for me it feels like if i get married I am somehow giving credit to religion which is something I refuse to do. I don't judge others for doing it and I love a good wedding but it's not something that I'd ever do.

/Common-law
//All the same benefits
///Just don't call me married


Way too many words. Next time just say "debate me".
 
2014-02-17 10:16:25 PM  

jst3p: Z-clipped: No, in most places you can't get divorced if you have a common law marriage.  You have to petition the state directly to dissolve your contract, and it's much more difficult than getting a divorce.


lolwut?


My mistake.  I was reading up on this stuff last week because I'm going through a divorce in a state that I haven't lived in for very long, and just now realized I mis-read the analysis. Scratch that.  It looks like divorce from common law is pretty normal.
 
2014-02-17 10:17:54 PM  

mbillips: a particular individual: insertdip: I'd be pissed. I know this might sound crazy but marriage in our culture carries far to many religious overtones and I want no involvement with it. Obviously people who are non religious get married but for me it feels like if i get married I am somehow giving credit to religion which is something I refuse to do. I don't judge others for doing it and I love a good wedding but it's not something that I'd ever do.

/Common-law
//All the same benefits
///Just don't call me married

Marriage in America is strictly between the couple and the state. Even if you get married in a church, it's not a legal marriage without a state-issued marriage license. You can get married with no ceremony apart from getting said marriage license and swearing before a justice of the peace that you want to get married. It's too bad that religion has co-opted marriage to the point that it's perceived as a covenant with God. Fortunately, Las Vegas has taken tremendous strides to remedy that misconception.

Read the common-law marriage link up the thread. Not every state requires a piece of paper, although once they recognize your common-law marriage, it's EXACTLY like getting the marriage registered with a license (you can't dissolve the marriage without a formal divorce).


My point was that insertdip shouldn't see marriage as a religious commitment, since even church weddings aren't legal without state sanction. Only the state can declare a couple to be married. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.
 
2014-02-17 10:17:56 PM  

insertdip: Profile out of date. I live in BC now.


In that case, disregard that part of my comment.
 
2014-02-17 10:24:28 PM  

gja: AHEM:::
Currently, 10 states (Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah) as well as the District of Columbia allow common law marriages, and a NY common law marriage may be established if you were common law married in any of these jurisdictions.
Because Pennsylvania borders New York and allows common law marriage, the most common state for New York common law marriage to come from is Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania also has no specific requirements for how long a couple must cohabit to be considered common-law married, but instead just requires proof of cohabitation and a reputation of marriage, as well as evidence that both people committed to the marriage verbally.

TMYK


Some of this info is out of date.  For example, PA abolished common law marriage 9 years ago.
 
2014-02-17 10:28:26 PM  

Z-clipped: jst3p: Z-clipped: No, in most places you can't get divorced if you have a common law marriage.  You have to petition the state directly to dissolve your contract, and it's much more difficult than getting a divorce.


lolwut?

My mistake.  I was reading up on this stuff last week because I'm going through a divorce in a state that I haven't lived in for very long, and just now realized I mis-read the analysis. Scratch that.  It looks like divorce from common law is pretty normal.


CSB: When breaking up with someone I had lived with in Colorado for some time she threatened to claim common law marriage in order to receive spousal support. My reply:

"The judge is going to laugh you out of court when I inform him that you are still married to Chris."

/she wasn't divorced yet
 
2014-02-17 10:31:35 PM  

jst3p: Z-clipped: jst3p: Z-clipped: No, in most places you can't get divorced if you have a common law marriage.  You have to petition the state directly to dissolve your contract, and it's much more difficult than getting a divorce.


lolwut?

My mistake.  I was reading up on this stuff last week because I'm going through a divorce in a state that I haven't lived in for very long, and just now realized I mis-read the analysis. Scratch that.  It looks like divorce from common law is pretty normal.

CSB: When breaking up with someone I had lived with in Colorado for some time she threatened to claim common law marriage in order to receive spousal support. My reply:

"The judge is going to laugh you out of court when I inform him that you are still married to Chris."

/she wasn't divorced yet


Biatches be crazy.
 
gja
2014-02-17 10:39:55 PM  

Z-clipped: gja: AHEM:::
Currently, 10 states (Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah) as well as the District of Columbia allow common law marriages, and a NY common law marriage may be established if you were common law married in any of these jurisdictions.
Because Pennsylvania borders New York and allows common law marriage, the most common state for New York common law marriage to come from is Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania also has no specific requirements for how long a couple must cohabit to be considered common-law married, but instead just requires proof of cohabitation and a reputation of marriage, as well as evidence that both people committed to the marriage verbally.

TMYK

Some of this info is out of date.  For example, PA abolished common law marriage 9 years ago.


Did not know, Thanks. However NY will still recog a CLM from other states it is legal in. Weird.
 
2014-02-17 10:42:58 PM  

danno_to_infinity: ciderczar: ciberido: Mad_Radhu: iheartscotch: Why would you do that? Sentence happy, marriageless people to a life of sexless misery?

Not familiar with the phenomenon of lesbian bed death, eh?

WTF is this, and no, I am NOT going to have that in my internet search history.


"Lesbian bed death" is the hypothesis that since women seem to want or need sex less than men, and copulation tends to decrease with time in long-term relationships anyway, when you put the two together, over time lesbians (more so than heterosexual or gay male couples) would stop having sex altogether.  The "bed death" is the hypothesized atrophy of the lesbian couple's sex life.

What few studies have actually been done on the topic don't really do much to support the idea, however.
 
gja
2014-02-17 10:55:44 PM  

ciberido: danno_to_infinity: ciderczar: ciberido: Mad_Radhu: iheartscotch: Why would you do that? Sentence happy, marriageless people to a life of sexless misery?

Not familiar with the phenomenon of lesbian bed death, eh?

WTF is this, and no, I am NOT going to have that in my internet search history.

"Lesbian bed death" is the hypothesis that since women seem to want or need sex less than men, and copulation tends to decrease with time in long-term relationships anyway, when you put the two together, over time lesbians (more so than heterosexual or gay male couples) would stop having sex altogether.  The "bed death" is the hypothesized atrophy of the lesbian couple's sex life.

What few studies have actually been done on the topic don't really do much to support the idea, however.


LBD? And here I was thinking it would be more along the lines of actual death resulting from an ever increasing size of sex toy leading to eventual use of one the size and shape of a fire hydrant with a motor run by a pneumatic source typically used for demolition jackhammers resulting in internal organ ruptures.

Eh, a guy can dream.......
 
2014-02-17 10:59:51 PM  

Yakk: What the hell? Do people want this?


My first thought too. The government can't legally modify an existing contract. But hey, puppies and candy for all, comrades.
 
2014-02-17 11:01:45 PM  
TheSwissNavy:

My first thought too. The government can't legally modify an existing contract. But hey, puppies and candy for all, comrades.

YES THEY CAN!

/and did
 
2014-02-17 11:02:45 PM  
a particular individual:
My point was that insertdip shouldn't see marriage as a religious commitment, since even church weddings aren't legal without state sanction. Only the state can declare a couple to be married. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

How is this so hard to understand? I don't see marriage as a religious commitment. Many people do and that is the problem. A marriage can be completely devoid of religion and still lend credibility to religion. So many people still talk about things like living in sin and I find it ridiculous. I just choose not to participate. Same reason that i refuse to get my child christened. The ceremony is meaningless to me and i understand that doing it would change nothing except that all the grandparents would be happy. I just refuse to perpetuate stranglehold that religion has on so much of our society.

/Lives in Canada
//Not surrounded by religious wackos like in the states
///Still can't stand adults with imaginary friends
////Forget the fundies, attack the moderates
 
2014-02-17 11:03:15 PM  

theropod: My partner and I entered a civil union in Colorado shortly after they were legalized last year. We made it VERY casual (flashmob ceremony at Red Rocks, no gifts, pay-for-your-own lunch at Hamburger Mary's afterwards). We went into it with the explicit understanding that it was NOT a wedding, otherwise we would've made a bigger deal of it (pay a photographer, invite out-of-state family, etc.). We have grander plans that I only want to do after SSM officially goes nationwide.

If the State of Colorado were to tell us all of a sudden: "Uh, y'all are married now," I would have a problem with that.


As the article points out, Connecticut and New Hampshire already did this as well.  It seems the most straightforward solution when they have two differently named legal statuses depending on orientation and are trying to merge them back into one after gay marriage is made legal.

You might want to think about that situation.
 
2014-02-17 11:13:26 PM  

TheSwissNavy: Yakk: What the hell? Do people want this?

My first thought too. The government can't legally modify an existing contract. But hey, puppies and candy for all, comrades.


lolwut?

Isn't bankruptcy the government modifying existing contract?
 
gja
2014-02-17 11:16:42 PM  

jst3p: TheSwissNavy: Yakk: What the hell? Do people want this?

My first thought too. The government can't legally modify an existing contract. But hey, puppies and candy for all, comrades.

lolwut?

Isn't bankruptcy the government modifying existing contract?


Shhhh, don't take away their illusion......

/pay the IRS late and find out just how much the gov can change contracts without asking
 
2014-02-17 11:19:55 PM  

gja: jst3p: TheSwissNavy: Yakk: What the hell? Do people want this?

My first thought too. The government can't legally modify an existing contract. But hey, puppies and candy for all, comrades.

lolwut?

Isn't bankruptcy the government modifying existing contract?

Shhhh, don't take away their illusion......

/pay the IRS late and find out just how much the gov can change contracts without asking


Hell, Judge Judy has the power to modify contracts.
 
2014-02-17 11:22:24 PM  
It's almost like if you contract with the state, the state has authority over you.

/freedumb
//the same reason you are in deep poodoo if you do not sign the papers win or lose in court
///do eet or go to jail because you agreed the court is God
 
2014-02-17 11:33:56 PM  

Gordon Bennett: ciberido: /Which reminds me: Pandora has apparently decided I'm lesbian, based on the number of Tegan and Sarah tracks it keeps throwing at me.//That's what I get for giving indigo girls tracks thumbs up.

Maybe you should confuse it by adding some thumbs up for some Lynyrd Skynyrd and Molly Hatchet songs


Maybe.  I do actually quite like "Free Bird" and a few other Skynyrd songs.

Like a lot of Pandora users, I have several different channels because the kind of music I want to listen to depends on my mood or what I am doing.  So I have an "energetic" channel for the kind of music I want to listen to while I'm dancing or exercising, a "Latina" channel for some good Latina/Hispanic stuff (like Maná  and Orishas, not that accordion crap they force you to listen to in Mexican restaurants), a channel for the music I loved when I was in high school, and one, ironically, that more or less is my "lesbian channel" ---- I call it "Radio Laramie" and seeded it from the Amy Ray song.

If Tegan and Sarah were to show up anywhere, one would expect it to be there (if Pandora seriously knew or cared about whether a song was "gay" or not).  But no, they showed up in the channel that was seeded from Metric's Combat Baby.  Go figure.

If there's any logical connection between Metric and Tegan and Sarah, it's beyond me.
 
2014-02-17 11:41:26 PM  

ciberido: theropod: My partner and I entered a civil union in Colorado shortly after they were legalized last year. We made it VERY casual (flashmob ceremony at Red Rocks, no gifts, pay-for-your-own lunch at Hamburger Mary's afterwards). We went into it with the explicit understanding that it was NOT a wedding, otherwise we would've made a bigger deal of it (pay a photographer, invite out-of-state family, etc.). We have grander plans that I only want to do after SSM officially goes nationwide.

If the State of Colorado were to tell us all of a sudden: "Uh, y'all are married now," I would have a problem with that.

You can always decide to hold a wedding when and if it suits you, regardless of whether the state considers you married.  While it's certainly traditional to hold a wedding at the same time the marriage begins, there have always been occasions when people decided to have one without the other, or to have both but at different times.


Okay you're smart enough to know the answer to this, I was thinking only clerks or judges could do the marriage license thing then I thought of ship captains. Well women weren't originally allowed on ships ( bad luck, or something) What kind of traditional married thing is that?
 
2014-02-17 11:45:44 PM  

theropod: My partner and I entered a civil union in Colorado shortly after they were legalized last year. We made it VERY casual (flashmob ceremony at Red Rocks, no gifts, pay-for-your-own lunch at Hamburger Mary's afterwards). We went into it with the explicit understanding that it was NOT a wedding, otherwise we would've made a bigger deal of it (pay a photographer, invite out-of-state family, etc.). We have grander plans that I only want to do after SSM officially goes nationwide.

If the State of Colorado were to tell us all of a sudden: "Uh, y'all are married now," I would have a problem with that.


Sorry, you got married regardless of what they called it.  You just decided not to have a wedding in lieu of your flash mob thing.
 
2014-02-17 11:46:36 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: Okay you're smart enough to know the answer to this, I was thinking only clerks or judges could do the marriage license thing then I thought of ship captains. Well women weren't originally allowed on ships ( bad luck, or something) What kind of traditional married thing is that?


That's a myth.  Ship captains can't marry people legally.
 
2014-02-17 11:47:36 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: ciberido: theropod: My partner and I entered a civil union in Colorado shortly after they were legalized last year. We made it VERY casual (flashmob ceremony at Red Rocks, no gifts, pay-for-your-own lunch at Hamburger Mary's afterwards). We went into it with the explicit understanding that it was NOT a wedding, otherwise we would've made a bigger deal of it (pay a photographer, invite out-of-state family, etc.). We have grander plans that I only want to do after SSM officially goes nationwide.

If the State of Colorado were to tell us all of a sudden: "Uh, y'all are married now," I would have a problem with that.

You can always decide to hold a wedding when and if it suits you, regardless of whether the state considers you married.  While it's certainly traditional to hold a wedding at the same time the marriage begins, there have always been occasions when people decided to have one without the other, or to have both but at different times.

Okay you're smart enough to know the answer to this, I was thinking only clerks or judges could do the marriage license thing then I thought of ship captains. Well women weren't originally allowed on ships ( bad luck, or something) What kind of traditional married thing is that?


Except that being a ships captain alone does not give legal power to perform a wedding. If the captain happens to be a minister or a clerk or a judge then cool, but otherwise not so much.
 
2014-02-17 11:49:47 PM  

meyerkev: iheartscotch: hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm actually surprised that they worded the bill the way they did. Technically, if you've lived with your roommate long enough; congratulations! You're married!

Yeah, that's common-law marriage.  Fairly standard.  That's how that biatch is going to steal the family house.  In another 2 years, she'll be "married", and then she can get divorced and take the house.

/Everyone knows it.
//Except the uncle who owns the house.
///*sigh*


What state is this in? Most states do not have common law marriage.
 
2014-02-17 11:49:58 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: ciberido: theropod: My partner and I entered a civil union in Colorado shortly after they were legalized last year. We made it VERY casual (flashmob ceremony at Red Rocks, no gifts, pay-for-your-own lunch at Hamburger Mary's afterwards). We went into it with the explicit understanding that it was NOT a wedding, otherwise we would've made a bigger deal of it (pay a photographer, invite out-of-state family, etc.). We have grander plans that I only want to do after SSM officially goes nationwide.

If the State of Colorado were to tell us all of a sudden: "Uh, y'all are married now," I would have a problem with that.

You can always decide to hold a wedding when and if it suits you, regardless of whether the state considers you married.  While it's certainly traditional to hold a wedding at the same time the marriage begins, there have always been occasions when people decided to have one without the other, or to have both but at different times.

Okay you're smart enough to know the answer to this, I was thinking only clerks or judges could do the marriage license thing then I thought of ship captains. Well women weren't originally allowed on ships ( bad luck, or something) What kind of traditional married thing is that?


Cecil Adams says it's largely a myth.  Bermuda and Japan are somewhat exceptional in this regard.
 
2014-02-17 11:50:24 PM  

LrdPhoenix: theropod: My partner and I entered a civil union in Colorado shortly after they were legalized last year. We made it VERY casual (flashmob ceremony at Red Rocks, no gifts, pay-for-your-own lunch at Hamburger Mary's afterwards). We went into it with the explicit understanding that it was NOT a wedding, otherwise we would've made a bigger deal of it (pay a photographer, invite out-of-state family, etc.). We have grander plans that I only want to do after SSM officially goes nationwide.

If the State of Colorado were to tell us all of a sudden: "Uh, y'all are married now," I would have a problem with that.

Sorry, you got married regardless of what they called it.  You just decided not to have a wedding in lieu of your flash mob thing.

This can be a new zinger: Oooh you've been wedded!  Wedpown'd?

 No, I got it: Matrimowned!
 
2014-02-17 11:52:48 PM  

gja: Z-clipped: gja: AHEM:::
Currently, 10 states (Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah) as well as the District of Columbia allow common law marriages, and a NY common law marriage may be established if you were common law married in any of these jurisdictions.
Because Pennsylvania borders New York and allows common law marriage, the most common state for New York common law marriage to come from is Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania also has no specific requirements for how long a couple must cohabit to be considered common-law married, but instead just requires proof of cohabitation and a reputation of marriage, as well as evidence that both people committed to the marriage verbally.

TMYK

Some of this info is out of date.  For example, PA abolished common law marriage 9 years ago.

Did not know, Thanks. However NY will still recog a CLM from other states it is legal in. Weird.


All states do. Just because you can't marry under common law in most states doesn't mean you're not married in those states if your marriage comes from another state where you can.*

*Still unresolved for gay couples, but it's only a matter of time, IMO.


insertdip:

How is this so hard to understand? I don't see marriage as a religious commitment. Many people do and that is the problem.

The problem is that you're allowing people who believe something that is incorrect to dictate your life decisions.

A marriage can be completely devoid of religion and still lend credibility to religion.

Only in the minds of idiots.  Again, why are you letting idiots make your choices for you?  Civil marriage is a civil right.  By refusing to exercise your rights, you're helping the people who want to take those rights away from others.

Same reason that i refuse to get my child christened.

How in the hell is this even remotely the same thing?  A christening is a religious ceremony.  A marriage is not.  It seems like you're very confused.  Like, if religious idiots suddenly started saying "Catholics take communion, therefore eating crackers and drinking wine are inherently religious activities", you would refuse to eat crackers or drink wine ever again because doing so would legitimize their claims?

The ceremony is meaningless to me and i understand that doing it would change nothing except that all the grandparents would be happy. I just refuse to perpetuate stranglehold that religion has on so much of our society.

Except that the ceremony when you get married actually serves a social purpose.  You stand up in front of people you know and love (or at least, know) and you make promises to one another.  This creates a bond and a responsibility that goes beyond just the two people agreeing to marry.  Marriages succeed because they support and are supported by communities of people.  Denying yourself that just because you've been made to feel like an outsider by intolerant religious people is a victory for them, not you.
 
2014-02-17 11:56:22 PM  

walktoanarcade: LrdPhoenix: theropod: My partner and I entered a civil union in Colorado shortly after they were legalized last year. We made it VERY casual (flashmob ceremony at Red Rocks, no gifts, pay-for-your-own lunch at Hamburger Mary's afterwards). We went into it with the explicit understanding that it was NOT a wedding, otherwise we would've made a bigger deal of it (pay a photographer, invite out-of-state family, etc.). We have grander plans that I only want to do after SSM officially goes nationwide.

If the State of Colorado were to tell us all of a sudden: "Uh, y'all are married now," I would have a problem with that.

Sorry, you got married regardless of what they called it.  You just decided not to have a wedding in lieu of your flash mob thing.
This can be a new zinger: Oooh you've been wedded!  Wedpown'd?

 No, I got it: Matrimowned!


Well played.
 
2014-02-17 11:56:45 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: I was thinking only clerks or judges could do the marriage license thing then I thought of ship captains.


In Pennsylvania, literally any adult (or group of adults) can officiate a marriage, thanks to the Quakers and their wacky anti-hierarchical religious structure.

LrdPhoenix: That's a myth. Ship captains can't marry people legally.


They can in Pennsylvania!  : )
 
2014-02-18 12:05:20 AM  
Huh, WA state has no established common law marriage.

Neat.  So.....maybe I can "get married" someday and not lose the house if things aren't Disneytastic.

Rather weird that a state that would say on the one hand you're married if you have a domestic partnership, but not if you mirror the actions undertaken by other couples in states with common law marriages, which it recognizes from other citizens from those states, but not from its own citizenry.Hypocrisy in law much?

What if I get married under a blanket inside a pillow fort?  Am I married, or does the state have to catch us wearing complementary outfits?    In a way the state is saying some other state's citizen's half-measure is better than our half measure, and here's some tax breaks because hey look a bird.
 
2014-02-18 12:08:03 AM  

jst3p: walktoanarcade: LrdPhoenix: theropod: My partner and I entered a civil union in Colorado shortly after they were legalized last year. We made it VERY casual (flashmob ceremony at Red Rocks, no gifts, pay-for-your-own lunch at Hamburger Mary's afterwards). We went into it with the explicit understanding that it was NOT a wedding, otherwise we would've made a bigger deal of it (pay a photographer, invite out-of-state family, etc.). We have grander plans that I only want to do after SSM officially goes nationwide.

If the State of Colorado were to tell us all of a sudden: "Uh, y'all are married now," I would have a problem with that.

Sorry, you got married regardless of what they called it.  You just decided not to have a wedding in lieu of your flash mob thing.
This can be a new zinger: Oooh you've been wedded!  Wedpown'd?

 No, I got it: Matrimowned!

Well played.


*Clumsy bow*
 
2014-02-18 12:08:10 AM  

iron de havilland: Before gay marriage was allowed in parts of the UK, right wing rhetoric was that with the demolition of the biblical union of a man and a woman, it would suddenly be great for fathers to marry their sons for tax purposes.One of the Tory grandees was the first person I saw proposing this notion. I want to say Lawson, but I may be wrong. But then, Jeremy Irons weighed in on the issue himself, making the exact same point.


It was Norman Tebbit. I dread what life must be like inside of his psyche to jump from same-sex marriage rights to that.
 
2014-02-18 12:15:26 AM  
Is there an organized point missing contest happening today on fark? That is the only explanation I can come with for this thread.
 
2014-02-18 12:20:39 AM  

Thrag: Is there an organized point missing contest happening today on fark? That is the only explanation I can come with for this thread.


What did we miss?
 
2014-02-18 12:49:40 AM  

DarkVader: theropod: My partner and I entered a civil union in Colorado shortly after they were legalized last year. We made it VERY casual (flashmob ceremony at Red Rocks, no gifts, pay-for-your-own lunch at Hamburger Mary's afterwards). We went into it with the explicit understanding that it was NOT a wedding, otherwise we would've made a bigger deal of it (pay a photographer, invite out-of-state family, etc.). We have grander plans that I only want to do after SSM officially goes nationwide.

If the State of Colorado were to tell us all of a sudden: "Uh, y'all are married now," I would have a problem with that.

Well, you're now on notice that it will probably happen.

Like Washington, you'll likely get a significant amount of notice before it does, so you'll have time to choose to either dissolve, get married, or wait until it becomes a marriage with no action needed on your part.


Look to get together and marry me you wantreLLY WONTneed such measure's.
 
2014-02-18 01:23:14 AM  
Way to troll subby...
 
2014-02-18 02:50:15 AM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: ransack.: skinink: I now pronounce you Yogi and Boo Boo. You may kiss the bear.

My vomit phone you pay me new phone,

If you vomit when seeing a gay couple, but you don't vomit when you see this picture, you have no case, you perverted bigot.  :)

[wackymania.com image 600x575]


utahphotojournalism.comi17.photobucket.comcdn-www.i-am-bored.comwww.teamjimmyjoe.com

Sacred...yeah...
 
2014-02-18 03:07:32 AM  

TheSwissNavy: Yakk: What the hell? Do people want this?

My first thought too. The government can't legally modify an existing contract. But hey, puppies and candy for all, comrades.


We have altered the contract. Pray we do not alter it further.
 
2014-02-18 03:13:48 AM  
Silly Progressives, and their laws of unintended consequences...
 
2014-02-18 05:22:28 AM  
FTFA: By mid-to-late March, the Secretary of State's Office will send out notices to those in the domestic-partnership registry, alerting them to the pending change. As of Friday, an estimated 6,500 same-sex couples remained in the state registry.
Those in the process of dissolutions or annulments of these unions won't be converted.


So...they're notifying those with registered partnerships that the conversion is happening and those in the process of annulment won't be affected. Way to journalism there, Seattle Times
 
2014-02-18 06:56:27 AM  

iheartscotch: hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm actually surprised that they worded the bill the way they did. Technically, if you've lived with your roommate long enough; congratulations! You're married!


But isn't that where the phrase "common law wife/husband" comes from?  From statutes that would recognize a couple that has cohabited for so many years to be legally recognized as a marriage? Isn't that what a "civil union" technically is?  It appears that it hasn't taken long for people to forget that the whole "defend families and traditional marriage" frenzy to get states to constitutionally define marriage ultimately ended the whole common-law union of straight couples, forcing anyone that wishes their significant other to have legal standing and rights (next of kin, power of attorney, resident of home owned by partner) to only have the option of "traditional marriage"
 
2014-02-18 07:19:26 AM  
walktoanarcade:
Rather weird that a state that would say on the one hand you're married if you have a domestic partnership, but not if you mirror the actions undertaken by other couples in states with common law marriages, which it recognizes from other citizens from those states, but not from its own citizenry.Hypocrisy in law much?

What does the domestic partnership have to do with common law marriage?  The domestic partnership they are talking about was essentially regular marriage with a different name, for homosexual couples.  It required the registration and certificate and everything.  It's just changing the name, so that it is using the legal status that the federal government recognizes.

As for recognizing common law marriages from other states, yes states have different laws on many things including marriage (and not just for common law marriages, but for other rules about ages, parental permission, relatives, gay marriage, waiting time, etc).  They still recognize a contract made in a state where it was legal, due to something called the Full Faith and Credit Clause.  To do otherwise would be blatantly unconstitutional (though some states are trying with gay marriage).  So, unless you think no states should have laws differing from each other, or should ignore the constitution, they will all recognize some contracts (including marriage ones) that they do not permit to be made in their own state.
 
2014-02-18 09:10:12 AM  
politicians trying to make everyone happy backfires,
story at 11
 
2014-02-18 09:26:16 AM  

Semantic Warrior: iheartscotch: hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm actually surprised that they worded the bill the way they did. Technically, if you've lived with your roommate long enough; congratulations! You're married!

But isn't that where the phrase "common law wife/husband" comes from?  From statutes that would recognize a couple that has cohabited for so many years to be legally recognized as a marriage? Isn't that what a "civil union" technically is?  It appears that it hasn't taken long for people to forget that the whole "defend families and traditional marriage" frenzy to get states to constitutionally define marriage ultimately ended the whole common-law union of straight couples, forcing anyone that wishes their significant other to have legal standing and rights (next of kin, power of attorney, resident of home owned by partner) to only have the option of "traditional marriage"


Common law marriage historically has mostly been used to protect women who were long-term partners of men who never married them legally (but enjoyed all the benefits of marriage), and then either up and left them, or died. Claiming common law marriage allowed them to collect alimony or maintain control of shared property and inheritence in those situations.

The myth that two people living under the same roof for an extended period somehow become automatically married without their consent is nonsense that has been floating around for generations.

"Civil union" is a bullshiat term invented by religious asshats in an attempt to a) claim sole ownership of marriage as a religious rite, and b) use that claim to exclude people they find undesirable. It is, in most of the places that have codified it, intended to replace marriage for those people, not supplement it.

Also, States "defining" marriage has no effect on common law. The SCOTUS ruled that states must specifically ban common law marriage by statue if the don't want people to be able to claim that status.
 
2014-02-18 10:04:28 AM  
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say this is a much-needed win for the homeless.
 
2014-02-18 10:35:27 AM  

ciberido: hardinparamedic: Yes. YES. The Gay agenda marches forward.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[s3.amazonaws.com image 718x550]

It's time.



1.bp.blogspot.com

If you don't know to run to the left or right, you deserve what you get.
 
2014-02-18 11:07:16 AM  

ErinPac: walktoanarcade:
Rather weird that a state that would say on the one hand you're married if you have a domestic partnership, but not if you mirror the actions undertaken by other couples in states with common law marriages, which it recognizes from other citizens from those states, but not from its own citizenry.Hypocrisy in law much?

What does the domestic partnership have to do with common law marriage?


I suggest you re-read what I wrote because it's self-explanatory.

I've decided life is too short to explain anything I've written in text unless there's a genuine need of further explanation, which of course does not apply in this case.
 
2014-02-18 01:50:50 PM  
We've gone from telling them they can't get married... to forcing them to get married if they're not?

...HOW THE F*** DOES THAT EVEN WORK?!?!?
 
2014-02-18 02:45:17 PM  
I'm not gay, but if they force me to get gay married, I hope they make me gay marry Johnny Depp.
 
2014-02-18 03:04:59 PM  

TheSwissNavy: Yakk: What the hell? Do people want this?

My first thought too. The government can't legally modify an existing contract. But hey, puppies and candy for all, comrades.


The legal rights and obligations of the persons involved aren't being changed.  It's just an effort to streamline state law by removing the type "domestic partnership" from the books, since legally it's identical to marriage.
 
2014-02-18 03:59:53 PM  

trippdogg: TheSwissNavy: Yakk: What the hell? Do people want this?

My first thought too. The government can't legally modify an existing contract. But hey, puppies and candy for all, comrades.

The legal rights and obligations of the persons involved aren't being changed.  It's just an effort to streamline state law by removing the type "domestic partnership" from the books, since legally it's identical to marriage.


At the state level, nothing changes. At the Federal level, everything changes. The Federal government will not recognize civil unions (aka RDPs) as marriage.
 
gja
2014-02-18 04:32:02 PM  

metal_gear: We've gone from telling them they can't get married... to forcing them to get married if they're not?

...HOW THE F*** DOES THAT EVEN WORK?!?!?


Because.....gub-mint.

/thanks obummer
 
Displayed 222 of 222 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report