Quote:

---

New Jersey court has lifted a ban on same-sex marriage but state Governor Chris Christie has said he intends to appeal against the decision.

Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson handed down the decision on Friday, finding the state's civil union system deprived those couples of certain federal benefits.

The ruling takes effect on 21 October.

Thirteen US states, including much of the Northeast region, currently allow same-sex marriage.

The ruling follows a July US Supreme Court decision striking down key parts of a law that prohibited the federal government from granting benefits to same-sex partners.

That same month, a group of same-sex couples and gay rights groups sued the state of New Jersey. They said the separate classification of "civil unions" did not entitle them to the same benefits as married persons.

Judge Jacobson ruled in their favour, finding the separate labels excluded gay couples from certain benefits, such a filing a joint federal tax return.

"Every day that the state does not allow same-sex couples to marry, plaintiffs are being harmed," she wrote in her opinion.

The order will not take effect until 21 October, allowing the state time to challenge the ruling.

Following the decision, a spokesman for New Jersey Gov Chris Christie told the media his office intends to lodge an appeal against the ruling with the state Supreme Court.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by whozit:
Gov. Fatbutt is OK with civil unions but thinks the word "marriage" should be left out, the left and their whores in the MSM have to have "that word" in all the bills, civil unions arn't good enough.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by whozit:
Gov. Fatbutt is OK with civil unions but thinks the word "marriage" should be left out, the left and their whores in the MSM have to have "that word" in all the bills, civil unions arn't good enough.

---

As noted in the article, the U.S. tax code does not recognize civil unions. If you want to file "Married Filing Jointly", you have to be married.

Seems it'd be simpler to let gay folks get married, rather than having to go through every law on the books involving marriage and add "...or civil unions."


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by whozit:
Gov. Fatbutt is OK with civil unions but thinks the word "marriage" should be left out, the left and their whores in the MSM have to have "that word" in all the bills, civil unions arn't good enough.

---

As noted in the article, the U.S. tax code does not recognize civil unions. If you want to file "Married Filing Jointly", you have to be married.

Seems it'd be simpler to let gay folks get married, rather than having to go through every law on the books involving marriage and add "...or civil unions."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Niki - Sodomy was 'expressly illegal' too. Now, state by state, it's being legalized.

Same as gay marriage,so why not the same w/ polygamy ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:

Why? Because right wing tools like you are the only ones incapable of recognizing the difference between two consenting adults and more than two consenting adults. Thankfully, the rest are smart enough to figure this tricky situation.

Ditto with recognizing the difference between a consenting adult and a child or a dog. Right wingers have a tough time with that too.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:



Allowing gays to marry takes down any legitimate reason to ban polygamy then. " Marriage " means pretty much what ever the hell we want it to mean, to hell with tradition and 1000's of years of precedence.

Not being the least bit 'anti-gay',but merely pragmatic on the issue. In for a penny,in for a pound, right ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Allowing gays to marry takes down any legitimate reason to ban polygamy then.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Allowing gays to marry takes down any legitimate reason to ban polygamy then.

---

Fine with me. Don't see any reason that any combination of informed, un-coerced adults shouldn't be able to be together if they choose to.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'd bet 99% , if not more, of Americans are clueless as to the significance of 'Fitzroy'. We don't bother w/ royalty so much, unless they're getting married, having a child, or dying.

But the as to legal heirs to a union... that can only occur when there's a male and a female present.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I fully support a ban on gay marriage.
But then, I'd like to see all marriage banned.
It's a silly archaic custom.
We're all individuals; if we choose to shag someone in particular, so be it.
The idea that you can predict your future feelings for someone is nonsense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Well, I think marriage is a choice that should be available to anyone who wants it, but as someone who emphatically DOESN'T want it, I get your meaning.

I do not think "love" exists as the propaganda describes. And I also think searching for "love" is a waste of time, an idea perpetuated by people who want us worried about the less important things.

---

Quote:

---

I think there are still some of us who see the benefits in having long term relationships, because we want the stability and companionship that that can bring. I think its okay for people to make that committment to one another, that you'll hang in there for the good and bad times. It's a great thing to have that. Trouble is people get married for the wrong reasons. They don't mean for better or for worse, they mean 'until you lose your job, get fat or I get bored'.

---

Quote:

---

It's ridiculous to attempt to communicate with you on this further

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

The concept of "romance" is perpetuated by advertisers against people who believe in it, to lower their self-esteem and to get them to buy into empty promises. That is blatantly malicious and predatory. There is also inevitably disappointment when expectations don't meet up with reality. Why people can get so overemotional about one person like any million others is beyond me, yet it drives them to despair, rage, even suicide anyway. "Romance"/"Love" is therefore hurtful.

The majority of history has been arranged marriages. Marrying for "romance" or "love" is a relatively new concept, perpetuated by society and the smiling marketers who capitalize upon it, just a word invented to pretty up the ugly reality and make it more palatable. They tell everyone that it seems bad now, but you might find someone else out there who can help you cope with the mundane tortures of existence. But really only YOU can do that for yourself. This is therefore false hope.

I am not capable of your attachments, and am glad for it. I will never marry, and I scoff at "romance." The concept is offensive to me. I stand on my own, or I will die trying. I will leave no legacy, and expect no significance to result from the brief and meaningless time I was here.

This is the only truth I can live.

---

Quote:

---

You're swiping the entirety of human bonding off the table with this, and that includes friendship, which is something well described by the words "companionship" or "help you cope with the mundane tortures of existence".

---

Quote:

---

You are obviously free to reject all of it, but it's not really objective or truthful to proclaim the concept of human bonding as an artificially marketed source of only misery.

---

Quote:

---

But it's not really that stupid or irrational to (make the attempt to) create a long-term commitment with another person based on all aspects of life: economic, social, emotional, reproductive, sexual, etc. Most people already form long-term bonds with all kinds of other people based on just some of these aspects. It's a gamble and it doesn't always work out long-term, but not all people striving for it are doing it out of deceived stupidity. And it doesn't always end because illusions were shattered but because people tried and worked on it and mutually, amicably, decided that not all aspects of their lives are long-term compatible. And they don't necessarily regret having made the attempt, either, but stay connected through the other aspects of their shared lives, having been enriched by the experience.

There's immaturity at fault in a lot of marriages that end, but not in all. It's no more or less of an emotional gamble than any strong bond we form with someone, and for most people, the benefits involved in bonding outweigh the downsides, even with the experience of pain.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Quote:

---

It's ridiculous to attempt to communicate with you on this further

---

Why do you assume I'm talking to YOU? I'm doing my best to ignore you, actually. You ought to try likewise to ignore ME, I guarantee you'll "enjoy" it.

---

Quote:

---

But if you don't want folks responding to what you write - an open public forum probably isn't the place to do your writing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
So... Apparently there IS artifice AND misery in (all?) relationships, and there is a lack of consensus about whether positivity or negativity predominates.

Which one is the safe bet? I know which one I'd bet on.

No one said anything about stupid. But there is something to be said about what we tell ourselves sometimes, about friendships, about relationships - and I'm not sure any of it is true. And I also know it can be exploited.

---

Quote:

---

I wouldn't say artifice is a part of all relationships, or at least not at their core.

---

Quote:

---

Everyone should be free to choose what makes them least miserable.

---

Quote:

---

It's the judging that I disagree with.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I fully support a ban on gay marriage.
But then, I'd like to see all marriage banned.
It's a silly archaic custom.
We're all individuals; if we choose to shag someone in particular, so be it.
The idea that you can predict your future feelings for someone is nonsense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Holy JEEZ. So much messed up about custody. As if vindictive people fighting over the kids is good for the kids.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:


But there's definitely aspects of both instances that need some reforms. And custody. Holy JEEZ. So much messed up about custody. As if vindictive people fighting over the kids is good for the kids.

---

Quote:

---

If I had the option of asking Rap and ALL those assholes who go after me constantly in the very nastiest way to ignore me, don't you think I would?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Thank you for your cooperation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Thank you for your cooperation.

---

A Robocop line! Excellent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

I see that we've moved onto the mocking phase, like you do with AURaptor. Good, good. I'm perfectly fine with that. Based on established history you will move on to the "pretending it's just the wind" phase shortly, and by that the terms of the agreement will then be filled. In anticipation of this, I can now begin to fulfill my side of the obligation.

---