CITY HALL IN SAN FRANCISCO

[bodypilot90 0]

"Next."
"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage
license."
"Names?"
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same
gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings.
That's incest!"
"Incest?" No, we are not gay."
"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do
love each other.
Besides,
we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and
lesbian couples who've
been
denied equal protection under the law. If you are not
gay, you can get
married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. gay man has the same right to marry
a woman as I
have.
But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to
marry a woman. I
want
to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim. Are you going to
discriminate against us
just
because we are not gay?"
"All right, all right. I'll give you your license.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Next."
"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June
Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love
Jane and Robert,
Jane
loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and
Robert loves June
and me.
All of us getting married together is the only way
that we can express
our
sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and
lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of
marriage is that
it's
just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit
marriage to couples.
The
more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The
mayor says the
constitution guarantees equal protection under the
law. Give us a
marriage
license!"
"All right, all right.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Next."
"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
"In what names?"
"David Deets."
"And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality,
so I want to
marry
the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax
return."


enjoy I'm going jumping!!!!!!!

[JJohnson 0]

Well.....I guess this isn't that far off.....soon their will be no financial benefits to being married, children will be the only dependents and spouses won't count. Next multiple spouses will have to be legal....See what happens when you get the government and lawyers involved in relationships...

If there were not laws against this stuff it would be no big deal. Life used to be simple when it was run by common sense.

JJ

"Call me Darth Balls"

[tunaplanet 0]

LOL. Good job. That will definitly be the next step.

You forgot to include those who want to marry their pets.

Forty-two

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

You forgot to include those who want to marry their pets.

LOL true.

[EdC 0]

I'd have to move to Utah, I have four dogs here at home. I think my favorite is the blonde (golden retriever).

Big Ed

[gary350 0]

Amazingly asinine argument against keeping two Americans from marrying, solely based on gender, which is all anyone is trying to do.

Oh No! It's a slippery slope! What will it lead to?!? Ahhhhh! Must stop them!!!

Get a grip! Get over it! Don't approve of gay marriage? Don't have one. Otherwise keep your grubby, religious "morals" off other people's freedoms. Sickening.

[pajarito 0]

I didn't really see any "religious" anything in the above statements.

[gary350 0]

Quote

I didn't really see any "religious" anything in the above statements.

True. And perhaps I do wrongly jump to conclusions about specific people's motivations on the issue. I'm sure there are folks who put up asinine "slippery slope" arguments about basic freedoms that are not based on sanctimonious religious morals. But in general, there sure seems to be a correlation.

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

True. And perhaps I do wrongly jump to conclusions

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo. You? Get out of here. Who would have thought.

Forty-two

[gary350 0]

Quote

Quote

True. And perhaps I do wrongly jump to conclusions

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo. You? Get out of here. Who would have thought.

I know, I know - tough for you to have to see and hard for you to believe, but yes - on rare occasions, especially on hot-button issues of justice and civil/human rights, it does happen and when it does, I want to be the first to. . . HEY! You didn't really mean that, did you??? You were being sarcastic, weren't you??? Ouch.