Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

New York Supreme Court Gay Marriage Ban-A Sarcastic Play

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
dorktv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-08-06 12:13 AM
Original message
New York Supreme Court Gay Marriage Ban-A Sarcastic Play
Opening scene In a Bar

Man (drunkenly to woman next to him): Sechs?

Woman (also drunkenly): yesh

Six Weeks Later
Outside same bar

Woman: Oh! I am glad I ran into you again.

Man (guilty look): Uh why?

Woman: Remember the sex we had after meeting for the first time ever while completely and totally drunk?

Man: Um…yeah kind of?

Woman: Well guess what?! I am pregnant. Which makes joining my convent kind of hard.

Man: You are a nun! Wow! And I got married a week after we had that sex.

Woman: Well no, not a nun YET. But golly, we are a pair of completely irresponsible people.

Man: Yeah, but you know if I was not married I totally would marry you even though I have only known you for um *looks at watch and does a quick bit of math* a half hour. Because after all as a completely irresponsible person the state legislature has allowed for me to have incentive to get married even after a momentary intimate moment if it means a pregnancy results from it.

Woman: Yes, and it was a momentary moment. Besides you are too hideous to marry. But my brother is gay and him and his partner would love to raise this child even if it is a little sooner then they wanted.

Man: Yes and your breath smells so I would not be happy. But it would be great your brother would raise our child however, they cannot get married and have a stable relationship because the NY Supreme Court says that they plan all their children out.

Woman: Wait, how is this planning their children out? How would they know I was going to get knocked up from a drunken one night stand and give them the chance at their own little bundle of joy?!

Man: I have no idea. But I am sure that the NY Supreme Court is completely right that the state Lege has to provide incentives for irresponsible people like us to marry simply because a pregnancy has occurred by accident while gays do not need any incentives at all to be forced into anything since they plan ahead when having children.

Woman: Well this is not true at all since look, my brother is going to have his first child as soon as I give birth!

Couple exchange phone numbers for the legal stuff required in giving up a child for adoption and then leave to go about their day.

THE END

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060706/cm_thenation/1599577_1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-08-06 06:18 AM
Response to Original message
1. here's the quote
Judge Robert Smith ''The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary.''
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorktv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-08-06 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I know that but I read the quote in the Nation and heard it on the radio.
Even if the "legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary" that does not mean that the way the judgment was written is not a slap in the face of any gay couple who have been together for years and love one another and want the same right to marry their loved ones as the stupid couple in my play.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-08-06 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. oh no i know that -- it's how stupid the actual quote is
Edited on Sat Jul-08-06 01:17 PM by xchrom
that's surprising.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorktv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-08-06 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I heard it and I was "Um does NO ONE know the history of western
marriage?" Alliance, money, property, love, extra hands around the farm and the "Heir and Spare" are the main reasons people got married.

Children did not start becoming "children" until the past one hundred and fifty years or so. Even then we emphasize love as a reason to get married in this country unless the right wing wants to deny rights to someone.

Then it is all about the children that they gleefully neglect to vote for decent social supports.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-08-06 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. we could go back to the good old days where the village elders
Edited on Sat Jul-08-06 01:29 PM by xchrom
and assorted grannies decided who you should mate with.

that's always charming.

plus now that this justice has put it this way - i think we should reconsider the marriages of any non-breeding straight people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorktv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-08-06 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Yep...time to start denying marriages to anyone who cannot comfirm
they are fertile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-08-06 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
6. nice play
yes, i am disgusted. i think the court would honor arraigned marriages before our own. well, i'm just a second class citizen so what do I know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorktv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-08-06 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. more then court does I bet.
Edited on Sat Jul-08-06 01:34 PM by dorktv
Thank you by the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC