I would say "WoooHooo!" except I'm not too sure about all the amendments. I'll have to study it more.
But at least it's a step in the right direction.
Ann-Marita. I deleted my usual signature due to, oh, wait, if I say why, that might give too much away.
I said WOOHOO!!! I don't know all the specifics, but OMG, so happy about this. A step in a long road to be sure, but a good solid step.
Adina mama to B 4/06 and E 8/13/12 (on her due date!)
What a great start for Pride weekend!
This part of the article was annoying:
The sticking point over the past few days: Republican demands for stronger legal protections for religious groups that fear they will be hit with discrimination lawsuits if they refuse to allow their facilities to be used for gay weddings.
I hate this arguement--- it literally makes no sense. A church can already discriminate on *religious* grounds, there is no reason to think that ANY church would be forced to marry a couple (men, women, both) if they did not want to.
I'm Australian, and this is a hot topic on the political scene here at the moment. Our prime minister auctioned off the chance to have dinner with her for charity, and the highest bidder was a gay rights group campaigning for gay marriage. That would have been an interesting dinner party!
|31 members and 16,663 guests|
|a-sorta-fairytale , alleycatsunflwr , Anne41 , BirthFree , blessedwithboys , Deborah , Dovenoir , emmy526 , Erica Sandwall , girlspn , JElaineB , katelove , lhargrave89 , lisak1234 , Lucee , moominmamma , MountainMamaGC , MylittleTiger , NaturallyKait , Nazsmum , philomom , RollerCoasterMama , shantimama , Skippy918 , Springshowers , sren , transylvania_mom , zebra15|
|Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.|