(no subject)
Jun. 22nd, 2005 07:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nigeltdeAhahahahaha my bitchy review of RotS got picked! I won! Well, with three other people. And, erm, they spelt my name wrong. But I still get a SW graphic novel (any recommendations as to which one to choose, if I get a choice?) and a double pass to see Sin City! So ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lainy122 and frostmourne, looks like I can go with you to see it after all *is smug*
Another interesting Balkin link, although this is by a guest contributor: Would you cross the street to avoid marrying in a heterosexuals only jurisdiction? The actual op-ed it links to is not all that interesting, and it's all aimed at heteros only of course, but the concept is. I've long thought that I'd never get married because of my various objections to it (namely, legitimating some relationships at the expense of others, and throwing in a whole bunch of rights to seal the deal), and that even if I would get married, I'd never get married till I could marry a girl as well as a boy. But the above is an implication of legalised queer marriage I hadn't thought of.
lainy122 and frostmourne, looks like I can go with you to see it after all *is smug*Another interesting Balkin link, although this is by a guest contributor: Would you cross the street to avoid marrying in a heterosexuals only jurisdiction? The actual op-ed it links to is not all that interesting, and it's all aimed at heteros only of course, but the concept is. I've long thought that I'd never get married because of my various objections to it (namely, legitimating some relationships at the expense of others, and throwing in a whole bunch of rights to seal the deal), and that even if I would get married, I'd never get married till I could marry a girl as well as a boy. But the above is an implication of legalised queer marriage I hadn't thought of.
