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 36
    More: Scary, domestic partners, secretary of states, lesbian couples  
•       •       •

20522 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Feb 2014 at 5:14 PM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-17 05:41:56 PM
5 votes:

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


Like trans-vaginal ultrasounds?
2014-02-17 05:33:57 PM
3 votes:
Liberals don't care what you do as long as it's mandatory
2014-02-17 05:17:57 PM
3 votes:

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


Payback is a biatch.
2014-02-17 05:57:43 PM
2 votes:

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 05:47:01 PM
2 votes:
I now pronounce you Yogi and Boo Boo. You may kiss the bear.

queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com
2014-02-17 05:34:21 PM
2 votes:

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 05:22:26 PM
2 votes:
What the hell? Do people want this?
2014-02-17 05:16:00 PM
2 votes:
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!
2014-02-18 09:26:16 AM
1 votes:

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.
2014-02-17 11:46:36 PM
1 votes:

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 11:19:55 PM
1 votes:

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.
gja [TotalFark]
2014-02-17 11:16:42 PM
1 votes:

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 09:13:40 PM
1 votes:
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 09:03:42 PM
1 votes:

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.
gja [TotalFark]
2014-02-17 09:01:02 PM
1 votes:

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 08:47:00 PM
1 votes:

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 08:23:15 PM
1 votes:
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 08:19:07 PM
1 votes:
What, no gay engagement first?  Gay rehearsal dinner?  At least a gay gift registry?  Right?  Come on!
2014-02-17 07:24:46 PM
1 votes:

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 06:18:14 PM
1 votes:

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

Payback is a biatch.


you wanted it - you got it

live with it
2014-02-17 06:01:11 PM
1 votes:

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 05:59:47 PM
1 votes:

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 05:56:27 PM
1 votes:

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 05:55:21 PM
1 votes:

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 05:49:51 PM
1 votes:
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 05:47:32 PM
1 votes:
Hey, I know, let's get the government involved in sanctioning personal relationships!  What could possibly go wrong?
2014-02-17 05:42:40 PM
1 votes:

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 05:40:17 PM
1 votes:

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 05:30:36 PM
1 votes:

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


Kinky gay sex terms, I assume.
2014-02-17 05:27:07 PM
1 votes:

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 05:24:40 PM
1 votes:

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 05:22:06 PM
1 votes:
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 05:19:17 PM
1 votes:
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 05:19:08 PM
1 votes:

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 05:18:42 PM
1 votes:

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 05:18:06 PM
1 votes:
Well, I'll be darned, the fundies were finally right about something.
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report