Comments on: Why New Jersey Should Give Up on Marriage: Everyone Else Has Already Lost!

By: Robert, NYC

Robert, NYC — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:46:52 +0000

Terrwill, not just little boys, but little girls. There’s a huge scandal going on in Ireland right now.

Brian, NJ….NY won’t have marriage equality for quite a few years. Too much roman cult interference I’m afraid.

I’m dead set against civil unions, its what many of the conservatives want, a separate form of legal segregation aided and abetted by the segregationist in the White House, him of all people who should know better than anyone. Make no mistake, even if he were able to get a federal civil union law passed, you wouldn’t get every right of marriage either because they have NO portability once you leave the country. Right wingers don’t even want civil unions or domestic partnerships, mostly the religious cultists, especially those of the roman cult.

I think we need massive, coast to coast civil unrest. Put the democrats on notice, you fuck with us, we’ll fuck you over and over at every election. NO more donations until we get full equality. As a colleague of mine on here often says, deprive them of oxygen.

By: terrwill

terrwill — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:22:43 +0000

Shouldn’t good Catholics be more concerned with other issues, like say all the priests who have diddled little boys over the last gazillion years????????? You know I am now convinced the whole lets be really vocal about opposition to the Gays gettin’ hitched is directley on orders from the men in dresses and pointy hats in the Vatican. Nothing like raising a big issue to attempt to deflect attention from another one………

By: Attmay

Attmay — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:04:57 +0000

@9 Mark:

The presence of one penis and one vagina trumps all other considerations as far as our breeder oppressors are concerned. By that standard, why should we ban polygamy as long as it’s breeder polygamy? As long as there’s one penis and at least one vagina, anything goes.

Approval ratings for interracial marriage didn’t reach 50% at the polls until 1985. By the same logic of our breeder oppressors, the courts shoved interracial marriage down our throats.

And why should we allow people to actually choose their partners? Arranged marriage is good enough for India.

By: mark

mark — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:52:20 +0000

The exclusion of same-sex couples from the benefits and responsibilities of marriage … signifies that their capacity for love, commitment and accepting responsibility is by definition less worthy of regard than that of heterosexual couples.

By: Attmay

Attmay — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:50:42 +0000

Filthy Romanist.

By: 1EqualityUSA

1EqualityUSA — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:54:44 +0000

…”to force an issue that only 2 percent of voters say is the most important facing the state, when there is so much critically important work for these lawmakers to do.”

What could be more critically important than standing up for equality? If they will do this to us, who is next?

By: Brian NJ

Brian NJ — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:49:58 +0000

You would think the NJ legislators would resent pressure from the catholic assholes, but no. They would choose some cat-licker’s hate ideology to helping families and children. Just sick. I am moving to Connecticut or NY, (if NY passes marriage equality).

By: Chitown Kev

Chitown Kev — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:20:17 +0000

“a blue state in the heart of New England, surrounded by other states whose courts had imposed gay marriage”

Uh, both New Hampshire and Vermont have marriage equality and it was done in the legislatures and signed by the governor’s of the respective states.

As was Maine’s, actually.

New Jersey has no referendum process. This bigot just threw up one epic fail of a red herring.

By: rf

rf — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:41:02 +0000

What we need in NJ are some death panels. Clear out the dead wood.

By: Cam

Cam — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:30:30 +0000

State by State racial equality laws failed many times as well. So should people have stopped fighting for them? Sheesh, NJ, get some balls.

By: InExile

InExile — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:21:16 +0000

Civil unions (federally recognized) would be nice if Obama could just remember he promised just that. Another lie.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:08:50 +0000

There actually is some merit to the point that gays would be better served by a consistent, nationally recognized civil union law than a patch work of state laws – marriage, civil unions, domestic partners, employer policies, etc — sometimes recognized in other states, sometimes not.