Who could use some good news for a change? Oh, everybody? Well, okay then. Here is some good news about two men who wanted to get married in Minnesota, which is a thing two men who want to get married in Minnesota are allowed to do, because that is the law now. They wanted to get married at Rice Creek, a hunting lodge where you can hunt and lodge and lodge and hunt and also get married. Rice Creek also does
“When Paul came home that night, he had some boxes and moving company brochures. He already knew we were moving. He knew it before I did." He rubbed his eyes. "Because he's my best friend.”
Diane and Agnes were rapt.
“So, yes,” Edward concluded abruptly. “Paul would pick me up if my car broke down. And I was wrong about my life in New York. This life -- right here, right now -- this is the 'for better' part.”
“Maybe you should marry Paul,” Agnes said to him, then laughed at her own joke.
“Alright," Diane said. "Despite his many, many imperfections, I will marry Clint. Maybe he'll be my best friend some day, maybe it won't work out. But I already live in Galveston so how much worse can things get?”
One thing worth clarifying, because the head here sorta suggests that the wedding will be held at the venue that initially refused them:
<blockquote>Following negotiations with the Department of Human Rights, the owners of LeBlanc&rsquo;s agreed to pay for the couple&rsquo;s wedding <strong>at a different location</strong>, as well as for their reception and travel costs and lodging for their wedding guests, estimated to be about $8,500. The date originally requested by Frey and Block at LeBlanc&rsquo;s was no longer available.</blockquote>
Can understand why the groom &amp; groom might not want to go there so much any more. And I&#039;m sure the threat of legal remedies had nothing to do with the venue&#039;s Road to Dam<em>ass</em>cus moment.
Remember back in &#039;08 when everybody wasn&#039;t &quot;ready&quot; for a blah president?
It was so sweet that they swaddled their bigotry in innocent-sounding language. &quot;I&#039;m not ready to quit beheading the apostates.&quot;
1. I&#039;m sure the threat of legal remedies was a factor.
2. I suspect that, after a bit of reflection, the owners may also have considered &quot;Hmm, we&#039;re in the business of selling weddings and receptions. Maybe an expanded customer base is good business?&quot; It&#039;s possible that the initial stonewalling came from staff folks (who may, themselves, have just been uncertain).
3. Popular wedding places book up way in advance, so given the delay occasioned by the initial refusal, the venue change may well be due to another booking.
Only future behavior will say for sure, but it looks to me like the owners may have decided to join the 21st Century.
Jeebus would never have written anything nasty like letting teh gheys get married - so it MUST be unconstitutional!
If they put a ring around it, they might like it better.
Or, so I&#039;ve been told.
You know who <i>else</i> likes to give happy endings?
<i>Texas 1991 ... or today</i>
&ldquo;When Paul came home that night, he had some boxes and moving company brochures. He already knew we were moving. He knew it before I did.&quot; He rubbed his eyes. &quot;Because he&#039;s my best friend.&rdquo;
Diane and Agnes were rapt.
&ldquo;So, yes,&rdquo; Edward concluded abruptly. &ldquo;Paul would pick me up if my car broke down. And I was wrong about my life in New York. This life -- right here, right now -- this is the &#039;for better&#039; part.&rdquo;
&ldquo;Maybe you should marry Paul,&rdquo; Agnes said to him, then laughed at her own joke.
&ldquo;Alright,&quot; Diane said. &quot;Despite his many, many imperfections, I will marry Clint. Maybe he&#039;ll be my best friend some day, maybe it won&#039;t work out. But I already live in Galveston so how much worse can things get?&rdquo;
Extra points for um, slipping a buttsecks reference all up in there.
<em>They are choosing to enforce the same-sex &lsquo;marriage&rsquo; law in an unconstitutional manner</em>
Just because you don&#039;t like what they&#039;re doing, He Who Shoots His Own Foot, doesn&#039;t make it unconstitutional.
One thing worth clarifying, because the head here sorta suggests that the wedding will be held at the venue that initially refused them:
<blockquote>Following negotiations with the Department of Human Rights, the owners of LeBlanc&rsquo;s agreed to pay for the couple&rsquo;s wedding <strong>at a different location</strong>, as well as for their reception and travel costs and lodging for their wedding guests, estimated to be about $8,500. The date originally requested by Frey and Block at LeBlanc&rsquo;s was no longer available.</blockquote>
Can understand why the groom &amp; groom might not want to go there so much any more. And I&#039;m sure the threat of legal remedies had nothing to do with the venue&#039;s Road to Dam<em>ass</em>cus moment.
Remember back in &#039;08 when everybody wasn&#039;t &quot;ready&quot; for a blah president?
It was so sweet that they swaddled their bigotry in innocent-sounding language. &quot;I&#039;m not ready to quit beheading the apostates.&quot;
1. I&#039;m sure the threat of legal remedies was a factor.
2. I suspect that, after a bit of reflection, the owners may also have considered &quot;Hmm, we&#039;re in the business of selling weddings and receptions. Maybe an expanded customer base is good business?&quot; It&#039;s possible that the initial stonewalling came from staff folks (who may, themselves, have just been uncertain).
3. Popular wedding places book up way in advance, so given the delay occasioned by the initial refusal, the venue change may well be due to another booking.
Only future behavior will say for sure, but it looks to me like the owners may have decided to join the 21st Century.
Baconz sighting. How&#039;s stuff?