3 Year Anniversary
Last week, Danielle and I celebrated our 3 year anniversary. Unfortunately, George W. Bush and his cronies and the rest of the republican brigade of bigots, are still “protecting the sanctity of marriage”, so we were incapable of celebrating the solidity of our relationship the traditional way.
I remember this one time, at a friend’s house, as we sat around and the other women discussed the possibility of getting married. I interjected with, “Danielle and I are getting married.” Shrieks of happiness ensued and in a stereotypical fashion of women, immediate plans of the wedding began. One of the women, in sheer happiness, asked me what the date for the wedding was. I replied, “Never, because it’s not legal for us to get married.” Silence.
I’m not sure what surprised me in this situation, them being overjoyed about the wedding or them not even knowing that gay people can’t get married. I can tell you it’s the latter, as I’d find it hard to surround myself with people who don’t approve of who I love.
Now, some of you must be wondering how I can start a post with the joyous announcement of mine and Danielle’s successful 3 year relationship and turn it into a rant about politics. Well, it’s quite easy. To those that are close to us, our 3 year anniversary is great news but to others it’s just another political battleground. Ah, I’ve said this all before.
A vote for Bush is a vote for discrimination.
17 Comments, Comment or Ping
Reminds me of a conversation me and my g-friend were having last night. We trying to come up with a definition of a “normal person” from amongst our friends. After wracking our brains we awarded it to my close pal, Ms. K. She lives in the ‘burbs, has had the same middle-management job for over a decade, has normal (boring) hobbies and been with the same wife for the past 15+ years.
Aug 27th, 2004
1. congratulations. i’ve poured a second bowl of frosted flakes in celebration!
2. i can imagine a very shrieky woman in a flowered print dress + apron clapping her hands together asking about the date of the wedding. i can also imagine you saying, ‘never, it’s illegal.’ that may not have been a realistic interpretation on my part, but it definitely made me laugh. a lot.
3. ok, it’s not really funny that i laughed at that. it’s disgusting and sad and fucked up. you just make things funny.
4. am i being offensive?
5. oh god
6. i mean not god
7. every great relationship is political
8. TOO MUCH SUGAR IN BOWL OF FROSTED FLAKES
2309820432 happy anniversary please hang out with us we want to celebrate and talk about not voting for bush
Aug 27th, 2004
HAPPY ANNIVERSARY!
and….holy shit! Gay people can’t get married?!?!?!?! What kind of fucked up world am I living in????? I thought that if marrying someone on television for a million dollars constitutes “protecting the sanction of marriage”, anything would! What ever was I thinking??
*enter sarcasm here*
Bush can suck it!
We need to hang out….*tear* I miss you guys.
Aug 27th, 2004
Hey, happy anniversary!
Aug 28th, 2004
YaY! Even though i haven’t talked to you in ages! i’m very happy for you two…i remember when you got together…awwww…woohoo!
Aug 29th, 2004
Thanks Everyone
Aug 29th, 2004
HAPPY HAPPY !!!!
Aug 30th, 2004
Happy Anniversary!
EVERYONE: VOTE KERRY!
Aug 31st, 2004
Actually a vote for Kerry would be a vote for the ban. Specifically, the president has zero role in the constitutional amendment process;
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification.
The Republican Congress is more likely to push forward a conservative social agenda if Kerry gets in, and are more likely to “log-jam” all amendments and legislation if Bush gets in to give him a “lame-duck” second term (in response to his liberal agenda on immigration, trade etc.)
A Vote for Kerry is a Vote for discrimination!
Sep 2nd, 2004
Bush proposed to change the constitution to include a point-blank discriminatory ammendment against gay people.
Kerry did not propose this. However, he doesn’t think gay people are entitled to be married either.
A vote for Bush is a vote for discrimination as a vote for Kerry is also a vote for discrimination on this agenda.
Sep 2nd, 2004
Thank you Benny and Sarah
Sep 2nd, 2004
Congrats on your anniversary ladies!
ps- feel better with your ankle…
Sep 3rd, 2004
Thanks Wanda
Those pics are up from the Hurricane Party, by the way.
Sep 3rd, 2004
Bush proposed to change the constitution to include a point-blank discriminatory ammendment against gay people.
You have your facts wrong, Bush never proposed it, Rep. Marilyn N. Musgrave did.
Sep 3rd, 2004
Bush proposed it to the public and continues to endorse it.
How are my facts wrong?
Sep 4th, 2004
Bush proposed it to the public and continues to endorse it.
Wait, wait, wait. First you accuse Bush of ‘proposing’ the amendment (a legalistic term meaning to offer an amendment into the congressional record) Then you cover your ass by twisting your slander into he proposed it to the public? Man, you lefties must view truth as non-existant, how else can you still get away with supporting the crime against humanity that is socialism (i.e. sticking to the leftist lie that “socialism didn’t kill 100 million non-combatants in the 20th century” even though it did)
Sep 6th, 2004
Every news article, every news paper, every Bush transcript on this subject goes like this “President Bush proposes constitutional amendment banning gay marriage”
Bush: “Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife. ”
This is not a proposition?
Find me a transcript of Bush speaking, find me audio of Bush NOT PROPOSING THIS.
You talk about me twisting my “slander”, what slander? Bush opposes gay marriage. What did I say that was twisted? What’s the slander you speak of?
Does Bush support gay marriage?
What part of “my truth” is “non-existent?”
And Scott, you’re getting way off topic and I have no idea what the hell you are talking about with you’re socialism didn’t kill a 100 million blah blah blah crap, the subject is Bush against gay marriage.
Sep 6th, 2004
Reply to “3 Year Anniversary”