Andrew Huff / February 9, 2012 12:14 AM

Background, should you need it.

TB / February 9, 2012 11:08 AM

I think the state should get out of the marriage business altogether (it is too emotionally charged and should be left to other institutions) and grant civil unions to couples regardless of gender make-up. But since that's not going to happen, the state should pass the bill - anything less is plain discrimination.

Bert Green / February 9, 2012 11:46 AM

Duh, yes.

c / February 9, 2012 4:50 PM

never! republicans need justification for their repressed secret homoerotic desires. wide stance! USA USA

Clayton Bigsby / February 9, 2012 5:15 PM

HELL NO!!!!!

I DON'T WANT NO TINKER BELL FANCY CHEES EATING TINKER BELL IN RED DANC'N SHOES FAIRY TO BE MARRYING MAH WHITE WOMEN!

WHITE POWER!

maardvark / February 9, 2012 10:03 PM

As of a couple weeks ago, I'm civil-union-thingied to my pseudo-husband. The name "married" definitely means somthing, if only because it comes with a built-in verb. But we did it for the bundle of rights, which truly is the same as our het frends and neighbors get. So it's sort of six-of-one, half-a-dozen of t'other.

eee / February 10, 2012 9:38 AM

I agree 100% with what TB said.

Horace / February 11, 2012 1:43 PM

"...and grant civil unions to couples regardless of gender make-up. "

Why continue to discriminate?

Che / March 6, 2012 5:22 PM

"we did it for the bundle of rights"

But you don't get the whole bundle of rights. Your relationship means nothing to the federal government and the majority of state governments. This is why we need full on marriage rights for everyone.