Same-sex lovers in New York won’t be able to weasel out of making a commitment, or at least one excuse is gone.
Congratulations, felicitations and best wishes to all New Yorkers. This is civil rights for some, and likely to be an economic boost for the whole state, especially those in the floral and photo industries.
The window of opportunity for Rhode Island is closing. We’ll look back some day and ask why we passed on a chance to do right and do well at the same time.
8 thoughts on “So, When’s the Wedding?”
Here’s the irony. Same sex marriage is passed by the republican controlled state senate one day after the archangle Obama whiffed on the same issue the day before.
Sorry I’m cranky – maybe it’s the meds wearing off. But I’m tired of people who claim to stand for something who are not actually standing up for what they claim to believe.
I have a tough time with that too. I still think Obama is the best prospect we have for president, but ‘ vote Obama, the rest of them are worse’ is not going to get me out knocking on doors. There are some things that make me glad I voted for him– I’ll address in a later post. Thanks for stopping by.
With Obama,you ahve to separate the man from the surrounding circumstances of his election.
When I was a kid,the notion of a Black President was science fiction at best.
In any event,it did happen, and was a momentous event in the general sense,but the individual at the center of it was(an is)in over his head.
His predecessor pretty much was also,but there was no great fuss made over Bush.He wasn’t treated like a comic book superhero and didn’t get handed the Nobel Peace prize on spec.
That peace prize fiasco was pretty bad,considering what Obama has done in the name of peace.Nothing.Actually,worse than nothing(Libya).
I don’t think any American president will come out in support of same sex marriage anytime soon.
I really don’t get the connection between it and improving a state’s economy.It’s very much a social issue.Please show the basis for it having any effect on the economy.
Obviously I meant archangel. What did I tell you about the meds?
Whew. And here I was all worried that I’d forgotten about arch-angles from my geometry days.
Geometry was he only math course where I didn’t embarrass myself.Arch angles??No political content here.
Biblical and geometric references notwithstanding, and now that we live in a state with the “almost pregnant” equivalent of civil unions, and given that I have some time to partcipate in the discussion, there are a few points I’d like to make.
First, arch angles are those found between right and obtuse angles, with a decidedly closer relationship to obtuse. This was revealed to me during an oxycodone haze, almost freakishly Einstein-like in its higher order comprehension and synthesis of thought. Of course, now that my back is making more progress, I’m less confident in the theory. But who knows? Knowledge was advanced on less inspiration than I experienced.
That said, I’m about to do something that I may regret and never thought I’d do. I’m going to agree with Observer, at least about the Nobel. Like you, sir, I thought one needed to actually do something prior to becoming a Nobel Laureate. This while forgeting the irony of his ordering drone attacks and reviewing options for what later became the “surge” in Afghanistan.
On the other hand, I would disagree with Observer when he asserts that we need to separate the man from the “circumstances of his election.” I would assert that it was precisely his projection of the type of man he was that set the terms of the election. He was the reformer, the redeamer, the Archangel who would smite those who sullied our democracy. He represented the “change you could believe in.” And who could forget his tag line, “Hope.” If that were not enough, let’s not forget him sending his supporters on their way after each rally with the admonition, “let’s go out and change the world.”
I’m still waiting for this change I could believe in. I would say that it’s impossible to separate the man from the election. Elections are personal enterprises, not abstract exercises. Voters rarely vote for someone they don’t like on a personal level. Elections are about character and personal qualities (e.g. good family man,religious affiliations, etc.). Having once bought in to the personal can we then buy in to the political. For example, how far would Obama have gotten with his change agenda if his supporters had not first bought into what they thought were his positive personal qualities?
I understand that some people still base their political decisions on party affiliations, race, religion, gender (and don’t dismiss the level of misogyny extant in 2008), but even though I might disregard those determinants they certainly are personal to the candidate who is seeking support. In short, elections are personal. Ask anyone whose name appeared on a ballot.
Nancy, I have to agree with you when you suggest that you’re not motivated to knock on doors for him in 2012. That he is the best “prospect” we have shows just how bereft we are of real progressive leaders. Therein is the tragedy.
Well,Jeff I have to be honest-I thought he was all hat and no cowboy.
Please don’t assume that mede me a Bush guy.I never was.
I actually believed McCain could handle the job.He needed his head examined for picking Palin,although,unlike Nancy,I don’t think Palin is a phony.
If agreeing with me scares you,then maybe you oughta look at yourself.
I have problem agreeing with Nancy on some stuff,actually most,but if she’s right,so be it.
There’s so much of an empty suit factor with Obama I don’t know where to start.
Reagan was considered a “warmonger”by the left.It didn’t turn out that way,did it?
Why?Because he actually scared the Soviets sh*tless.Result:They caved ,and set off a chain reaction that thankfully destroyed them.
The idolized Jack Kennedy brought the world closer to Armageddon than any other President.
Obama has no respect from the bad guys in the world.he did okay on Bin Laden,but probably because he had Pannetta and gates in the room.
Now-guess what?A Black man or woman runnning for President is not a crisis or a novelty.It’s just someone running for President.It’s like getting a splinter removed.
You actually believed Obama’s rhetoric?It was a bunch of crap.
He won’t get away with it again unless the Bachmann wing prevails in the Republican Party.
Bachmann,unlike Palin,is very knowledgeable,but she is ethically conflicted and way out there on the fringe.
Personally,I like people like Tom Coburn,who will tell Grover Norquist to stick it where the Sun don’t shine.
have a nice 4th(don’t let Harvard make you feel guilty about it):))