Spain legalizes gay marriages
- Thread starter surferboy
- Start date
steve319
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Posts
- 1,170
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2
- Points
- 183
- Location
- North Carolina
- Sexuality
- 90% Straight, 10% Gay
- Gender
- Male
From Wednesday's edition of The Borowitz Report:
BUSH TO WED SAUDI PRINCE
Impending Nuptials Alter President's Gay Marriage Stance
In a stunning development that could alter both the politics of oil in the Middle East and the politics of gay marriage in the United States, President George W. Bush and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah announced today that they would wed this June.
Tongues began wagging after President Bush greeted the Saudi prince at his Crawford, Texas ranch today with a passionate hug and a kiss, igniting rumors that the two men were more than just good friends.
Former Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, who was accused of being overly affectionate in public with his then-running mate, Sen. John Edwards, while on the 2004 campaign trail, was one of the first to note the steamy display between Mr. Bush and Prince Abdullah.
"John and I looked pretty gay, I'll admit, but not as gay as these two," said Mr. Kerry. "I was like, get a room!"
The announcement that Mr. Bush was set for a trip to the altar with a Saudi prince immediately raised the ire of gay marriage foes, who saw the president's decision as a cruel betrayal.
Hundreds of protesters appeared outside the Crawford ranch moments after the announcement, carrying signs reading, "No Love For Oil."
While Mr. Bush acknowledged that his decision to marry Prince Abdullah represents a startling U-turn in his position on gay marriage, he said, "When a Saudi billionaire asks you to marry him, you have to say yes."
Elsewhere, Kentucky Fried Chicken today sued Wendy's, claiming that if Wendy's is placing human fingers in their chili they are infringing on KFC's "finger licking good" trademark.
The Borowitz Report
"No Love For Oil," indeed! :lol: :lol:
BUSH TO WED SAUDI PRINCE
Impending Nuptials Alter President's Gay Marriage Stance
In a stunning development that could alter both the politics of oil in the Middle East and the politics of gay marriage in the United States, President George W. Bush and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah announced today that they would wed this June.
Tongues began wagging after President Bush greeted the Saudi prince at his Crawford, Texas ranch today with a passionate hug and a kiss, igniting rumors that the two men were more than just good friends.
Former Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, who was accused of being overly affectionate in public with his then-running mate, Sen. John Edwards, while on the 2004 campaign trail, was one of the first to note the steamy display between Mr. Bush and Prince Abdullah.
"John and I looked pretty gay, I'll admit, but not as gay as these two," said Mr. Kerry. "I was like, get a room!"
The announcement that Mr. Bush was set for a trip to the altar with a Saudi prince immediately raised the ire of gay marriage foes, who saw the president's decision as a cruel betrayal.
Hundreds of protesters appeared outside the Crawford ranch moments after the announcement, carrying signs reading, "No Love For Oil."
While Mr. Bush acknowledged that his decision to marry Prince Abdullah represents a startling U-turn in his position on gay marriage, he said, "When a Saudi billionaire asks you to marry him, you have to say yes."
Elsewhere, Kentucky Fried Chicken today sued Wendy's, claiming that if Wendy's is placing human fingers in their chili they are infringing on KFC's "finger licking good" trademark.
The Borowitz Report
"No Love For Oil," indeed! :lol: :lol:
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Posts
- 5,842
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,609
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
- Gender
- Male
Nixxie, have you taken leave of your senses? Do you really think it is posible for Douche Bag to learn about civil rights?
Douche Bag thinks that "civil" only refers to a war. All things refer to war.
We should buy him a toy gun and holster set to wear in pubic or under that new outfit that the Saudi prince is going to give him so they can look like twins.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2005
- Posts
- 2,976
- Media
- 17
- Likes
- 105
- Points
- 193
- Location
- Sunrise, Florida
- Sexuality
- 90% Straight, 10% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Nixxie, have you taken leave of your senses? Do you really think it is posible for Douche Bag to learn about civil rights?
Douche Bag thinks that "civil" only refers to a war. All things refer to war.
We should buy him a toy gun and holster set to wear in pubic or under that new outfit that the Saudi prince is going to give him so they can look like twins.
[post=305725]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]I can dream, yah?
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Nixxie, have you taken leave of your senses? Do you really think it is posible for Douche Bag to learn about civil rights?
Douche Bag thinks that "civil" only refers to a war. All things refer to war.
We should buy him a toy gun and holster set to wear in pubic or under that new outfit that the Saudi prince is going to give him so they can look like twins.
[post=305725]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]clinton had eight years to legalize it and didn't lift a finger to do it. Funny how selective outrage works.
yaoifun
Just Browsing
True. I think the government should have no say in it. Love is love, no matter what the form, and there is a seperation of Church and State, so if a church wants to marry gays, they should be allowed to. No question about it. It's just so contrivercial, the dear presidents would never want to risk bad publicity from narrowminded assholes who might not vote for them over it. Power, power, power...like alchohol and money...the creator, and solution, to all of Life's problems. And yes, I *think* I'm being facetious.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
careful, my skin secretes powerful carcinogens to ward off dangerous predators and anti-smokers.
[post=305989]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]Well, I smoke clove cigarettes so I think I'll survive!
*snuggles up to Dr. Rock and proceeds with the catbath*
... on the other hand he didn't approve any laws BANNING it either. people were prepared to put up with what clinton didn't do because of the things he DID. the real question here is, are the country and its people better off in any way - any one friggin insignificant way anyone could think of - under bush than they were under clinton? anybody??
... yeah, that's what I thought.
I can't stand politics and I don't usually bother, but the current government has made such an ass of itself on both national and international levels that you can't realistically defend it anymore.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Posts
- 5,842
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,609
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
- Gender
- Male
There was a quote earlier about separation of church and state. Here is the deal. The civil ceremony and/or the marriage licence is a contract between two people. Having been involved with the estates of one spouse dying and one sposue remainging. Marriage contract does provide the legal basis for two people living together. Prenuptials can be done. Decisions on ownership. It just legally cleans it up and makes it much easier. I know of a case where there was not marriage document. The woman was left legally with nothing. She worked in the business that her significant other owned. When he died from an accident, she had no job, no inheritance or anything. Now the family of her significant other were moral people and she was given voluntarily a part of the estate.
About church, a marriage in the church is a covenent between the two people getting married and God. There are promises to God. It is a religious ceremony. In the Catholic Church the word Sacrament is used instead of Covenent.
On is not required to get a religious ceremony. A civil cermony is all that is required. It is stricly a legal document.
Therefore, there is no reason to limit it to just a man and a woman. The state has no say in religious beliefs. The state's job is to protect religious beliefs, not determine what they are.
I personally don't mind using the terms marriage for man and woman and civil union for same sex unions. Just like we use the term gay for men and lesbian for women. That is provided the legal options are the same for both. There will be a need to have a legal name for the significant other. Spouse sounds like the best word to me. Though someone might have a better answer. Same sex unions shouldn't have to declare one as husband and one as wife. That is unnecessary.
At the present time, no church is required to conduct a marriage it does not approve of. Many people have gone to a justice of the peace for a civil ceremony becasue the pastor would not celebrate the marriage because one of the parties was divorced. The same would be true of a civil union. But I don't think public authorities should have that choice any more then they could decide that a person cant' buy a piece of property because the public official doesn't like the person.
If a person can't in legal consience conduct all the duties of his office, then he should not declare his candicacy for that position.
SHORT VERSION. THE STATE SHOULD DO CIVIL UNIONS FOR SAME SEX COUPLES WITH ALL THE SAME RIGHTS AND PREVILEDGES. SOME CHURCHES WILL NOT MARRY DIVORCED COUPLES. IT SHOULD BE THE SAME FOR SAME SEX UNIONS. EACH CHURCH SHOULD BE ABLE TO DECIDE FOR ITSELF WHETHER TO HAVE THOSE UNIONS INSIDE THEIR CHURCHES WITH THE PASTOR AS THE CELEBRANT.
About church, a marriage in the church is a covenent between the two people getting married and God. There are promises to God. It is a religious ceremony. In the Catholic Church the word Sacrament is used instead of Covenent.
On is not required to get a religious ceremony. A civil cermony is all that is required. It is stricly a legal document.
Therefore, there is no reason to limit it to just a man and a woman. The state has no say in religious beliefs. The state's job is to protect religious beliefs, not determine what they are.
I personally don't mind using the terms marriage for man and woman and civil union for same sex unions. Just like we use the term gay for men and lesbian for women. That is provided the legal options are the same for both. There will be a need to have a legal name for the significant other. Spouse sounds like the best word to me. Though someone might have a better answer. Same sex unions shouldn't have to declare one as husband and one as wife. That is unnecessary.
At the present time, no church is required to conduct a marriage it does not approve of. Many people have gone to a justice of the peace for a civil ceremony becasue the pastor would not celebrate the marriage because one of the parties was divorced. The same would be true of a civil union. But I don't think public authorities should have that choice any more then they could decide that a person cant' buy a piece of property because the public official doesn't like the person.
If a person can't in legal consience conduct all the duties of his office, then he should not declare his candicacy for that position.
SHORT VERSION. THE STATE SHOULD DO CIVIL UNIONS FOR SAME SEX COUPLES WITH ALL THE SAME RIGHTS AND PREVILEDGES. SOME CHURCHES WILL NOT MARRY DIVORCED COUPLES. IT SHOULD BE THE SAME FOR SAME SEX UNIONS. EACH CHURCH SHOULD BE ABLE TO DECIDE FOR ITSELF WHETHER TO HAVE THOSE UNIONS INSIDE THEIR CHURCHES WITH THE PASTOR AS THE CELEBRANT.
Similar threads
