“Ha! Ha!”

Thanks Queerty!

Lynch actually does still support the marriage bill, it’s just that some religious groups are withdrawing support.

So why does the headline read like Lynch lied about supporting the bill? Sounds like the liars here are the fundamentalists who broke their agreement.

This bill seems to give us what we want, though it’s a shame that government is tying the law in knots to accommodate the churches. What does “religious marriage” mean anyway? The rules for an orthodox Jewish, sharia Muslim and Roman Catholic marriage are all different. It is not one thing. It would have been far better to have one inclusive marriage law and a clear grandfather clause which exempts churches which feel they want to remain in medieval times. Creating “religious marriage” gives them a legal foundation to continue their discrimination, and less incentive to civilize themselves.

Ultimately it makes the law sloppy, though I suspect this would not have passed otherwise. The main thing for me is that we get all the recognition we deserve. Let them revisit this mistake in a few years once the electorate sees that the earth is not going to open up and swallow everyone.

Such lovely people, so incensed are they that two people want to spend their lives together that in the capacity of their business offering catering services to the public they can’t even be paid to slice you up some lunchmeat trays and put some mass-produced food over bunson burners. lol

There is a point where we have to agree to disagree, and separate state sanctioned marriage from the religious “marriage.” This indistinction is what got the evangelicals on our asses in the first place.