Comments

  1. Hrm says

    Still a little bummed that the first couple to get married wasn’t an actual plaintiff in the case, but instead two random guys in t-shirts on a lunch break. It just makes it seem less important. Was a collared shirt too much of a hassle for what is supposed to be an event important enough for us to keep going to the SCOTUS over?

  2. Diver39 says

    Really, guys? Two out of three comments are snarky? @HRM, you should know that urgency is frequently a major element in these decisions. We need to marry before the stay is in place, to show the opposition is each state that nothing changed when a same-sex couple married. To complain about their outfit seems a little unnecessary.

  3. oncemorewithfeeling says

    I can imagine few things more romantic than racing to City Hall the second you legally can marry with someone else in the world who loves you that much that they can’t wait another second to be married to you.

    And, yes, besides that, at any second they could have lost the chance because of a stay.

    The truth is that marriage is at once very important and very pedestrian. It is something any two people in love should be able to do on their lunch break. That is, in fact, exactly what we’re fighting for.

Leave A Reply