LGBT News Kentucky "Separate but Equal" Marriage Licenses

Now where have I heard that phrase before...

 

It's the South. We're cuckoo down here. What do you expect?

 

History really is doomed to repeat itself, I presume...

For those who don't know the county's dark history, look at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal

 

I would say it's clever and sneaky. Obviously, they did this with the intent knowing that same-sex couples wouldn't want to use the "bride and groom" form even though they would be allowed...

It wouldn't really be a "bad thing" if this passed, because unlike the pre-desegregation period, these marriages would be in fact equal, especially because they aren't forcing you to pick one form over the other. It would just be a big middle finger, but I wouldn't be too concerned with this legislation.

 

Plessy, Ferguson, please meet Brown and Topeka.

 

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/155043/butt-buddies

 

I refer the state of Kentucky to the words of David Lammy MP -

[YOUTUBE]uWIoULRrvxM[/YOUTUBE]

 

Aw jfc

 

I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but are these backwoods hicks done dragging their primitive knuckles on the ground so they can join the rest of us in 2016 already?

 

First party? Second party? We dirty homosexuals sure are party animals. No wonder them there Kentucky hillbillies hate us

 

If both forms are equally as valid, why not do away with the unnecessarily restrictive "bride" and "groom" designations and just have everyone use the latter? Anything to separate those icky gays who'd otherwise be using the same marriage licenses as us normals. How childish can people be?

 

Not sure I could care any less.

The link you provided didn't work, but having read another article about it I don't see the parallel with this and the civil rights movement. For one, they're still getting the right to marry, whereas the civil rights movement was actually about a group of people getting treated as if they were inferior.

In the end, gay marriage is legal all over the USA and now that it's legal, why are they complaining about a minor technicality that won't even affect their right to marry?

 

If that were the case, why not get rid of the "bride" and "groom" application and have the one that says "applicant 1" and "applicant 2" and get rid of the hassle/government regulations that set up hurdles for people if they happen to print off the incorrect license? I'm not sure if this law would hold up to the strict scrutiny Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka set up.

 

Amen.

 

I actually like the term "butt-buddies," I think it's cute.

 

If the marriages are truly legal under the law and are a choice, it seems a bit of tempest in a teapot. As long as couples gay or straight could choose either one the designation "bride" and "groom" seems rather quaint. It could answer a lot of straight people's question as to whom the "man" and the "woman" are in the relationship should the gay couple prefer the designation "bride" and "groom". There are so many bigger problems we face as a minority than trying to preserve and antiquated form of etiquette.

 

FYI, the link in the OP is broken. This one should work.