Join 3,497 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


In 'unusual' turn, Cook County state's attorney supports lawsuits questioning constitutionality of gay marriage ban
June 15, 2012 8:14 AM   Subscribe

"The fight for same-sex marriage rights in Illinois took an unprecedented turn Thursday as Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez conceded that the state's ban on gay marriage violates the Illinois Constitution, essentially agreeing with a pair of lawsuits her office was expected to oppose. It marks the first time a state has refused to contest a lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of a gay marriage ban. The Illinois attorney general's office, which would be next in line to defend the state's constitution, already had announced plans to file a brief in support of the lawsuits brought by Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois."
posted by nooneyouknow (79 comments total) 9 users marked this as a favorite

 
*jaw drops*
posted by rtha at 8:17 AM on June 15, 2012 [5 favorites]


"This makes it clear that lawsuit was an inside job from the beginning, a crass political move [...], said hyperpartisan reactionary Peter Breen, of the Thomas More Center, a "public interest" law firm well versed in crass political moves.
posted by OmieWise at 8:22 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


"This makes it clear that lawsuit was an inside job from the beginning, a crass political move to force same-sex marriage on all Illinoisans without providing residents of the other 101 counties an opportunity to be heard," said Peter Breen, president and chief counsel of the Chicago-based Thomas More Society, which opposes same-sex marriage.

Having grossly misunderstood the issue, Peter Breen, president and chief counsel of the Chicago-based Thomas More Society, drives home from the press conference and wonders about the man the state of Illinois will make him marry.

Maybe he'll have blue eyes, he hopes. That wouldn't be so bad.
posted by griphus at 8:23 AM on June 15, 2012 [173 favorites]


a crass political move to force same-sex marriage on all Illinoisans

I don't think they're going to force everybody to marry somebody of the same sex.
posted by atbash at 8:25 AM on June 15, 2012 [3 favorites]


Cook County just remembers what happened the last time their state offices had paperwork to handle.
posted by delfin at 8:28 AM on June 15, 2012 [3 favorites]


Maybe he'll have blue eyes, he hopes. That wouldn't be so bad.

Opponents of gay rights are not closeted gays. Do we really have to go through this in every thread?
posted by rocket88 at 8:28 AM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]


This is awesome.

I'm interested if another party is going to be allowed to defend the law, much as John Boehner was allowed to defend DOMA.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:30 AM on June 15, 2012


Griphus is insinuating that Peter Breen is insinuating that same-sex marriage is being forced upon all Illinoisians, even those tho don't want it.

Personally, I call KathrynT, and all y'all should be jealous.
posted by Madamina at 8:30 AM on June 15, 2012 [6 favorites]


It marks the first time a state has refused to contest a lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of a gay marriage ban.

California: What am I, chopped liver?
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:30 AM on June 15, 2012 [10 favorites]


Opponents of gay rights are not closeted gays. Do we really have to go through this in every thread?

Not all of them, of course. But it's been known to happen.
posted by Celsius1414 at 8:32 AM on June 15, 2012 [8 favorites]


Yeah. IIRC, Schwarzenegger didn't contest Perry, being in agreement with Perry on the matter.
posted by Navelgazer at 8:33 AM on June 15, 2012


Two of my friends are plaintiffs!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:34 AM on June 15, 2012 [5 favorites]


> Griphus is insinuating that Peter Breen is insinuating that same-sex marriage is being forced upon all Illinoisians, even those tho don't want it.

Yeah, that's how I read it. Now, if griphus had said something about Breen stopping at a rest stop on his way home...
posted by rtha at 8:34 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


It'll be like that time when Barney got married to Otto on the Simpsons.
posted by Nomyte at 8:34 AM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]


It was the entire first stage of the litigation - the Prop 8 supporters had to go to the 9th Circuit, and then the state supreme court, to get permission to defend the initiative as surrogate defendants after the state government announced that it wouldn't fight the suit.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:36 AM on June 15, 2012


But it's been known to happen.

In fact, it's been known to happen so often that a statement like "opponents of gay rights are not closeted gays" is actually not statistically true enough to hold water.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:37 AM on June 15, 2012 [18 favorites]


Opponents of gay rights are not closeted gays. Do we really have to go through this in every thread?

♪ It was a joooooo-ooooke ♫
posted by secretdark at 8:37 AM on June 15, 2012 [6 favorites]


Opponents of gay rights aren't ALL gay but they are all bigots.
posted by mike_bling at 8:45 AM on June 15, 2012 [14 favorites]


♪ It was a joooooo-ooooke ♫

What does that have to do with anything? It was a joke that was premised on opponents of gay rights being closeted gays. rocket88's point is that that premise is bullshit. Joking, serious, doesn't really matter. Bad premise.
posted by Tomorrowful at 8:45 AM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]


I don't know about this trend of executive-branch officials unilaterally declining to execute laws.

I understand completely where they're coming from on this one but, from a constitutional standpoint, it's not their job to decide which laws they are to enforce and defend. It's not like a criminal prosecution, where they have discretion to examine the facts and say, well, it just isn't worth our time to apply the law to this particular set of facts. But the trend of executive-branch officials not defending validly-passed laws--aside from their constitutionality--is entirely different. They're saying that, as a general matter, I will never enforce this law or defend its validity, which I have decided in advance is constitutionally indefensible.

How does that not critically disfigure the separation of powers among legislature, executive, and judiciary?
posted by resurrexit at 8:45 AM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]


California: What am I, chopped liver?

Prop 8 is a constitutional amendment, not a a law. Prop 8 was put on the ballot because the law banning gay marriage, prop 22, was ruled unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court. The state did defend prop 22.
posted by nooneyouknow at 8:50 AM on June 15, 2012


What does that have to do with anything? It was a joke that was premised on opponents of gay rights being closeted gays.

Er... no. To state that somebody can be resigned to their fate does not imply that they endorse that fate.
posted by atbash at 8:50 AM on June 15, 2012 [5 favorites]


The premise was that the sad little man is trying to keep a positive outlook in the face of his absurd fate. If you'd like to learn more about this sort of humor, ask your local librarian for any of Tom Wilson's Ziggy collections. Thank you.
posted by griphus at 8:51 AM on June 15, 2012 [59 favorites]


What does that have to do with anything? It was a joke that was premised on opponents of gay rights being closeted gays.

I didn't read it that way at all. I read it as a joke about Breen's lack of understanding about what this actually means, and then his flexible ability to come to terms with that faulty understanding.
posted by OmieWise at 8:51 AM on June 15, 2012 [13 favorites]


Prop 8 is a constitutional amendment, not a a law. Prop 8 was put on the ballot because the law banning gay marriage, prop 22, was ruled unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court. The state did defend prop 22.

But Prop 8 was still fought on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, and the state still declined to defend it. Hair-splitting.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:53 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


Okay, on my real computer now (not my phone). I don't find this surprising at all -- the day the lawsuit was filed, my husband and I were speculating who would bother to defend it, with the Cook County SA and the Illinois AG both being pretty liberal Democrats, supported by Democratic machines and fundraising, which have been very gay-friendly in Illinois the last few years. They were never going to defend this very robustly, and we figured it'd mostly be amicus briefs. Remember that Illinois has Civil Unions, passed by the legislature without a whole lot of controversy, and the world hasn't yet come to an end and there hasn't been a whole lot of noise about it since it passed. (Also it's probably worth noting that the Speaker of the Illinois House is the father of the Illinois Attorney General, both strong Democrats.)

I know a few people involved in this case (lawyers and plaintiffs both), and one of the goals in selecting the plaintiffs was to represent a very broad swathe of Illinoisians -- if you take a look at the plaintiffs (click "meet the couples") (ACLU plaintiffs), there are old couples and young couples, couples with children and couples without, white couples and couples of color, and, crucially, Chicago couples and downstate couples. They chose families that would represent the WHOLE state, not just well-educated white liberals in the big city. They're families that represent much of the diversity of the state. These aren't gay families; they're ILLINOIS families.

I live downstate in a more socially conservative area, and there just isn't that much opposition to the lawsuit. (It's out there, of course, but even most of my very GOP-involved friends aren't particularly opposed to full marriage rights in Illinois.) Because these are families we know, kids our kids go to school with, adults we work with. These plaintiffs aren't strangers, these aren't the distant urban elite; these are our people who live next door to us. It's hard for people to feel very "Us and Them" about it when it's so obviously "Us and Us." They're ours.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:54 AM on June 15, 2012 [26 favorites]


In other news: Denmark is completely fabulous now.
posted by ZeroAmbition at 9:06 AM on June 15, 2012 [3 favorites]


I read the joke as on the phrase to force same-sex marriage on all Illinoisans. The lawsuits don't do that, nor try to change any attitudes; they seek to establish constitutional rights. Breen can continue to think whatever he wants.
posted by lathrop at 9:07 AM on June 15, 2012


But Prop 8 was still fought on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, and the state still declined to defend it. Hair-splitting.

If California had declined to defend prop 8, maybe prop 22 wouldn't have happened. Since 22 was a direct result of the overturn of 8, I don't mind the Tribune splitting that hair.
posted by nooneyouknow at 9:08 AM on June 15, 2012


What does that have to do with anything? It was a joke that was premised on opponents of gay rights being closeted gays. rocket88's point is that that premise is bullshit. Joking, serious, doesn't really matter. Bad premise.

Chickens are unlikely to cross streets. A priest is generally unlikely to be found hanging out with a rabbi, let alone while walking into a bar. It's rare that I'll ask "who's there?" when someone knocks on my door.

Being so terribly afraid of something (in this case, gay marriage) opens you up to childish mockery involving the thing you're afraid of. If my housemate's afraid of spiders, there's a high chance that I'll run after if him with a spider under a glass. Because I'm childish.

That's this was. A childish joke based on the lowest hanging fruit - to use the very thing that someone's so terribly afraid of to make fun of them (partly, in this case, to point out how silly their fear is.) Call it childish or stupid or say that it adds nothing to the debate, but don't say it needs a valid premise. It's a joke.
posted by secretdark at 9:12 AM on June 15, 2012 [8 favorites]


the lowest hanging fruit

Oh my! *faints*
posted by Devils Rancher at 9:14 AM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]


Dudes: griphus was clearly implying that Breen is straight, not that he is closeted. The joke is that he is trying to find a silver lining in the face of his misapprehension that he is going to be forced into a mandatory same-sex marriage by the state of Illinois. It's actually a little more subtle than that but that is what the joke hinges on, not some premise that all opponents of same-sex marriage are secretly gay. You all need to get your senses of humor adjusted before you start jumping to conclusions and starting crabby derails like this, it's obnoxious and rather thick as well.

Now, can we all go back to celebrating this latest victory for civil rights? Hurrah Illinois! One step closer! Good luck and keep up the good fight!
posted by Scientist at 9:30 AM on June 15, 2012 [20 favorites]


In an unusual turn of events, common sense wins.
posted by arcticseal at 9:47 AM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]


First it was the judges, now it's pesky activist State's Attorneys.
posted by ericb at 9:53 AM on June 15, 2012


YOU GUYS THIS IS A NEAT THING THAT IS HAPPENING SO LET'S IGNORE IT AND TALK ABOUT GRIPHUS'S JOKE

I THINK THE 'BLUE EYES' THING MEANS GRIPHUS IS IMPLYING BREEN IS AN ARYAN, LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT
posted by shakespeherian at 9:53 AM on June 15, 2012 [24 favorites]


In other news: Denmark is completely fabulous now.

I'm not in Denmark, therefore I question this statement.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 9:54 AM on June 15, 2012 [8 favorites]


"This makes it clear that lawsuit was an inside job from the beginning, a crass political move to force same-sex marriage on all Illinoisans without providing residents of the other 101 counties an opportunity to be heard," said Peter Breen, president and chief counsel of the Chicago-based Thomas More Society, which opposes same-sex marriage.

I put on my robe and Cromwell1 hat.

(1) Thomas, not Ollie
posted by atrazine at 9:57 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


Opponents of gay rights are not closeted gays. Do we really have to go through this in every thread? ... Not all of them, of course. But it's been known to happen. ... In fact, it's been known to happen so often that a statement like "opponents of gay rights are not closeted gays" is actually not statistically true enough to hold water.

Homophobes Likely To Be Closet Gays, Study Finds
"The study, which analyzed four separate experiments conducted in the US and Germany, provides empirical evidence to suggest that in some individuals homophobia is the external manifestation of repressed sexual desires they feel towards their own gender."
posted by ericb at 9:59 AM on June 15, 2012 [5 favorites]


"...without providing residents of the other 101 counties an opportunity to be heard," said Peter Breen, president and chief counsel of the Chicago-based Thomas More Society ...

Isn't the Thomas More Society a Catholic institution? Not necessarily part of the Church, but claiming to be rooted strongly and supported by Catholic beliefs.

I wish that when a Catholic society complains that someone else isn't giving the grassroots a chance to be heard that a giant buzzer would go off, and a deep booming voice would intone "Try again. Maybe with a different attack this time."
posted by benito.strauss at 10:11 AM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]


As long as they don't serve that awful deep dish pizza at the reception I'll remain cautiously optimistic. Go Illinois! uphold the fuck out of the amendment!
posted by The Whelk at 10:11 AM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]


It's fun to watch this.

GRARRERS: YOU, DAVID ORR! You must fight this evil lawsuit to let Teh Gay marry!!!1!"

ORR: Heck no. They're right. I refuse to defend.

GRARRERS: YOU, ANITA ALVAREZ, since David Orr has been compromised by Teh Gay, you must fight this evil lawsuit to let Teh Gay marry!!!1!

ALVAREZ: Heck no. They're still right. I refused to defend.

GRARRERS: YOU, LISA MADIGAN, since all of Cook County has been compr....

MADIGAN: Dude, give it up, we've writing a brief to support the lawsuit.

GRARRERS: "YOU, PAT QUINN....err, never mind."

<GRARRERS exit stage left>
posted by eriko at 10:18 AM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]


As long as they don't serve that awful deep dish pizza

I will not be baited by your vicious slander.
posted by shakespeherian at 10:29 AM on June 15, 2012 [6 favorites]


eriko that reminds me of the old Star Trek TNG VHS game. YOU! THE ONE WHO IS MOVING NOW!
posted by xedrik at 10:32 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


As long as they don't serve that awful deep dish pizza

You are dead to me.

For a few minutes.
posted by mykescipark at 10:34 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


mykescipark: "As long as they don't serve that awful deep dish pizza

You are dead to me.

For a few minutes.
"

Maybe over lunchtime... how about sausage and mushrooms from Lou's?
posted by Reverend John at 10:39 AM on June 15, 2012


"I wish that when a Catholic society complains that someone else isn't giving the grassroots a chance to be heard that a giant buzzer would go off"

Just want to point out that Pat Quinn, Lisa Madigan, and Anita Alvarez are all Catholic, and at least partly Catholic-educated (Loyola, Georgetown). As are the President of the state Senate and the Speaker of the House. Not sure about Orr. So I think that giant buzzer is called "most of the Catholics doing the other thing because you're wrong."

posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:40 AM on June 15, 2012 [3 favorites]


Opponents of gay rights are not closeted gays.

They might as well be, for all the attention they pay to our private lives.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:49 AM on June 15, 2012 [5 favorites]


Deep dish pizza is delicious, but it is not pizza. It comes from the Midwest, you make it in a pan, there is a layer of dough on top, it is clearly a species of casserole.

This is super-good news. Yay Illinois!
posted by nebulawindphone at 10:57 AM on June 15, 2012 [11 favorites]


Opponents of gay rights are not closeted gays.

They might as well be, for all the attention they pay to our private lives.


Wait, now I'm lost. Is this an R. Kelly joke now?
posted by FatherDagon at 10:57 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


Though, okay, something else that's bugging me. Yes, you call people from Illinois [ɪlɪnojənz], I'm okay with that. But do you really spell it Illinoisans? Like, with a silent "s" in the middle? Because that's just perverse.
posted by nebulawindphone at 10:58 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


I have lived in this state for three years and have never pronounced the word 'Illinoisan'.

I fear it, really. I have no idea how to vocalize while forming my mouth in successive patterns to create this set of sounds.

I will continue to assert upon questioning that I am a Chicagoan and a Michigander, consistency be damned.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:05 AM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]


"But do you really spell it Illinoisans?"

Yep. We are a perverse people when it comes to Anglicized pronunciations of Francophone spellings of Algonquian words. It's part of our charm.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 11:11 AM on June 15, 2012 [10 favorites]


Hey folks, heard any good jokes lately?

....

Anyway, if Illinois does eventually pass gay marriage, I suppose that I will actually serve Chicago-style pizza... or as we call it here, pizza... at the reception. Just so my relationship can piss somebody off. All this acceptance just doesn't feel right yet.

(just kidding...it is, of course, awesome in a way that my younger self wouldn't have believed.)
posted by MCMikeNamara at 11:13 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


I hate Illinoisanazis.
posted by delfin at 11:18 AM on June 15, 2012 [3 favorites]


If California had declined to defend prop 8, maybe prop 22 wouldn't have happened. Since 22 was a direct result of the overturn of 8, I don't mind the Tribune splitting that hair.

Reverse that - Prop 22 was years ago and once it was ruled unconstitutional (as a ho-hum law, not an amendment), that's when all the marriage stuff started happening in CA. Then prop 8 came along to make a constitutional amendment so that the state courts couldn't overturn it.

Just because 8 comes before 22 numerically, doesn't mean that the propositions come up for ballot in the same order. CA hits the reset button on the numbers every once in a while. Like, this last election, prop 29 was for a cigarette tax. Years ago, I'm sure there was a prop 29 about banning the sale of horse meat.
posted by LionIndex at 11:21 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


I like Chicago style deep dish alright, in moderation, but Chicago style dogs and Italian beefs are where it's at. Man, I could murder a Portillo's beef & sausage combo right now.

(Also, there actually is a Chicago thin crust pizza too.)
posted by kmz at 11:35 AM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


Thanks for the correction, LionIndex.
posted by nooneyouknow at 11:42 AM on June 15, 2012


Saganaki was also invented in Chicago. Now I'm hungry and I just ate lunch. :P
posted by Foosnark at 11:47 AM on June 15, 2012


In related news -- 5 Reasons Gay Marriage Losing Streak May Be Over.
posted by ericb at 12:05 PM on June 15, 2012


In other Chicago food news -- Conan O'Brien sent the most polite person he could think of, 30 Rock's Jack McBrayer to the rudest hot dog stand at Chicago's The Wiener Circle. After McBrayer was bullied by the staff, he returned with reinforcements.
posted by ericb at 12:12 PM on June 15, 2012 [2 favorites]


It'll be like that time when Barney got married to Otto on the Simpsons.

Otto: OK, but I get to be the man this time.
Barney: You da man!
posted by jonp72 at 1:44 PM on June 15, 2012


"Having grossly misunderstood the issue, Peter Breen, president and chief counsel of the Chicago-based Thomas More Society, drives home from the press conference and wonders about the man the state of Illinois will make him marry."

One of the things that I tell homophobes when they wanna lecture me about the sanctity of the blah blah blah, is that my religion allows me to marry people against their will, then when they keep trying to lecture me, I just point to some other person of their gender and say, "Boom. You're married." It's not persuasive, but it is fun.

This is pretty fantastic news, and a good next step. I gotta wonder what state will be next after Illinois — by then, we should have Washington, Maryland, Vermont, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, DC and maybe Maine. Hopefully, California will come back within the next two years. Assuming California doesn't bring the country with, I wonder what state will be next. Oregon? Pennsylvania maybe? I know Wisconsin's Democrats have it in their platform — it could be a real platform piece nationally in 2014, since the South is fucked anyway on LGBT rights. Perversely, NC will probably be the first southern state to legalize it, and Mississippi is probably the last. I'm guessing it's about eight years until everybody in the states has marriage equality — if the SC doesn't do something revolutionary.
posted by klangklangston at 1:55 PM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


1) This is great.

2) OMG that Conan piece is hilarious!
posted by oddman at 4:21 PM on June 15, 2012


Chicago Pride Parade is going to be AWESOME this year. Not that it isn't every year. But still! And the new route starts not far from my place... I am so there.

Hey, Cabal -- who's in for a Rainbow Meet-Up?
posted by tzikeh at 4:32 PM on June 15, 2012


Opponents of gay rights are not closeted gays.

You're absolutely right, but they are still jerks.
posted by VikingSword at 4:34 PM on June 15, 2012


Deep dish pizza is delicious, but it is not pizza. It comes from the Midwest, you make it in a pan, there is a layer of dough on top, it is clearly a species of casserole

Deep dish pizza is just pizza in a deep dish, or pan. It's as much a casserole as a regular pizza with a bunch of toppings. You're thinking of stuffed pizza, which has the extra layer of dough on top of the toppings with more toppings on top of that dough that is on top of the toppings. You can have a deep dish pizza that's stuffed or not stuffed, and you can have a non-deep dish pizza that's stuffed or not stuffed (like a big calzone).

Thank you, this has been Chicago Culinary Science 101: Introduction to Pizza Taxonomy! Stay tuned next week for Chicago Geography 101: Converting Address Numbers to Miles.
posted by Evilspork at 5:05 PM on June 15, 2012 [5 favorites]


klangklangston, I could picture New Mexico being next, to be honest.
posted by Navelgazer at 5:19 PM on June 15, 2012


nebulawindphone: just the tip of the iceberg. In Illinois, the second syllable of Versailles is pronounced "sales"; Cairo sounds like Karo (the syrup), and my personal favorite, San Jose, where "Jose" rhymes with "rose".
posted by she's not there at 5:25 PM on June 15, 2012


Eyebrows McGee: "Two of my friends are plaintiffs!"

Anita Alvarez is my first cousin. :-) Her mom and my dad were brother and sister. She used to let me play with her Barbies and her MouseTrap game.
posted by SuperSquirrel at 8:10 PM on June 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


She's not there- don't forget Paulina and Devon. This poor Wisconsinite always messes those up when entering Chicagoland.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 7:26 AM on June 16, 2012


As long as they don't serve that awful deep dish pizza at the reception

Deep dish pizza is delicious, but it is not pizza.


*sharpens pizza cutter, whispers, "revenge"*
posted by adamdschneider at 11:42 AM on June 16, 2012


Stay tuned next week for Chicago Geography 101: Converting Address Numbers to Miles.

Divide by 800. Bam!
posted by kmz at 7:09 AM on June 18, 2012 [2 favorites]


Eyebrows McGee: "and one of the goals in selecting the plaintiffs was to represent a very broad swathe of Illinoisians -- if you take a look at the plaintiffs (click "meet the couples")"

Jim & Patrick
LaKeesha & Janean
Michelle & Michelle

Wow, that is remarkable. I don't know if I could marry someone with the same name as me. I mean, there's this guy at the co-working space I work at also named Jordan, and it weirds me out to no end every time I say "Good morning, Jordan" or the like. I always feel like I'm getting his name horribly wrong somehow. Jordan is an androgynous name and depending on the environment I've run into more female Jordans than male Jordans. So I suppose it's theoretically possible I could have ended up with someone named Jordan. But it just seems so weird.
posted by Deathalicious at 9:59 PM on June 20, 2012


Devils Rancher: "the lowest hanging fruit

Oh my! *faints*
"

Oh my, indeed.
posted by Deathalicious at 10:01 PM on June 20, 2012


I used to have a roommate who was named Tim, just like me, and inevitably when someone answered the landline (times of yore) their first question would have to be 'Which one?'
posted by shakespeherian at 5:32 AM on June 21, 2012 [1 favorite]


I have a great-aunt and -uncle named Bernard and Bernice. They just assume it was meant to be.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 5:40 AM on June 21, 2012


I have heterosexual married couple friends named Chris and Kris.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:19 AM on June 21, 2012


I worked with two roommates named Dave- they named their cat Dave as well. When you went to a party at their house, they'd greet you with I'm Dave, this is Dave, and this is Dave the cat.
posted by Devils Rancher at 6:28 AM on June 21, 2012 [2 favorites]


I also have a couple of friends in a heterosexual relationship: their names are Sam and Mariah. Except Sam is short for Samantha and Mariah is an old Irish family name but until you explain that everyone gets it wrong which of them is which.
posted by shakespeherian at 6:42 AM on June 21, 2012


« Older New York finally starting to reveal her secrets to...  |  Isle Royale is a 206 square mi... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments