Yeah, mostly don't want to chase people off something that can be really useful to those who are stepping outside WIC/cultural expectations of weddings/marriages by painting it as "hipster" when it's sort of a "tailored to each location" sort of thing.

LOOK YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW UNIQUE BURLAP AND CHALKBOARD IS!

Except that it's older than Etsy or Pinterest, sure. And exists because a lot of people got hated off The Knot for not having a traditional wedding.

*eyeroll* Sure, whatever you say. (Except for the whole existing longer than Etsy thing. Facts, man. They're SO inconvenient.)

Glad it wasn't just me.

Yeah, but that's what'll happen: he'll get charged with a felony, plea out as first offense, and get community service. At least, if we're lucky.

Nope, only more than $400. Which I suspect the egging will easily come to. (I mean, he'll cop a plea and get community service, but at least it'll finally start establishing an arrest record.)

Would've been a great solution!

Except that's not what happened, but hey. Details and facts, ya know.

*shakes head*

I wanted to get married in the Mütter Museum. You don't even want to know what it cost. o.0

They don't advertise it very well, but there is an entire Google Weddings. You can set up wedding websites, registries, etc.

"I can see how my wording could imply I viewed seeing Ms Dunham's body as a trap, or that a woman had to conform to certain body types to be seen on TV. My apologies. To clarify, my question was regarding the artistic motivation behind the nudity of the character Ms Dunham plays; seeing it as a choice to portray…

I'm deeply worried* about the Virginian Republicans. Something is wrong with them.

Heh, when I was trying to find venues in the Philly area, I was wondering why the fuck Google hadn't done this yet (and integrated it with their wedding section).

I really hope you said that to the judge. >:|

It's an issue, though, that he's refusing to back down from it being poorly phrased (denying it flat-out), and then dismissing people who point out it is and why as silly (or worse).

The problem is that he is rejecting that it was inartfully phrased. (I know. I had a spat with him on Twitter earlier, although he went and deleted most of his comments.)

I agree with this interpretation. (I also think it would have been really unlikely for the Utah AG to be able to nullify those marriages and have it stand up in court, in part because of what happened in California.)

When the Utah gov was all "AND WE WILL NOT RECOGNIZE" I just sat there and shook my head, because that? Was just not one that was gonna end well for him. (Seriously, case law alone.)