Gay marriage to be allowed in NJ

[Vazdania]

Good luck with getting Idaho and Utah to allow gay marriage. Just........I'll pray for you.

It's your time you're wasting not ours.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

About time.

14 down, 36 to go.

Good luck with getting Idaho and Utah to allow gay marriage. Just........I'll pray for you.

Shouldn't be a problem with Utah, if you think about it.

After all, we all know that pornography and gay marriage are just the top and bottom of the downhill slope of perversion.

And Utah apparently consumes Onanistic inspirations at a higher rate than anywhere else.

[Regnum Dominae]

About time.

14 down, 36 to go.

Good luck with getting Idaho and Utah to allow gay marriage. Just........I'll pray for you.

Don't worry your time will come.

That is, if there isn't already a federal law legalizing same sex marriage by then.

[Wisconsin9]

About time.

14 down, 36 to go.

Good luck with getting Idaho and Utah to allow gay marriage. Just........I'll pray for you.

Thank Jefferson for a federal government that can actually do things.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Shouldn't be a problem with Utah, if you think about it.

After all, we all know that pornography and gay marriage are just the top and bottom of the downhill slope of perversion.

And Utah apparently consumes Onanistic inspirations at a higher rate than anywhere else.

WUT?!

Quequi foi issu, tô cum meduuuu

[Sommorragh]

Good luck with getting Idaho and Utah to allow gay marriage. Just........I'll pray for you.

Shouldn't be a problem with Utah, if you think about it.

After all, we all know that pornography and gay marriage are just the top and bottom of the downhill slope of perversion.

And Utah apparently consumes Onanistic inspirations at a higher rate than anywhere else.

There's no repression like religious repression.

[Immoren]

I'll drink to that.

[Grenartia]

Shouldn't be a problem with Utah, if you think about it.

After all, we all know that pornography and gay marriage are just the top and bottom of the downhill slope of perversion.

And Utah apparently consumes Onanistic inspirations at a higher rate than anywhere else.

There's no repression like religious repression.

Besides, seeing as how so many Mormons buy that slippery slope fallacy bullshit, shouldn't they be jumping for joy for same-sex marriage anyways, seeing as how polygamy is on that slope somewhere?

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

There's no repression like religious repression.

Besides, seeing as how so many Mormons buy that slippery slope fallacy bullshit, shouldn't they be jumping for joy for same-sex marriage anyways, seeing as how polygamy is on that slope somewhere?

LDS Mormons discarded that doctrine long ago.

Though there are some non-LDS sects that still buy into it, but they're a very very small minority.

[The Godly Nations]

Besides, seeing as how so many Mormons buy that slippery slope fallacy bullshit, shouldn't they be jumping for joy for same-sex marriage anyways, seeing as how polygamy is on that slope somewhere?

LDS Mormons discarded that doctrine long ago.

Though there are some non-LDS sects that still buy into it, but they're a very very small minority.

I am sure that they would long to return to the days of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

LDS Mormons discarded that doctrine long ago.

Though there are some non-LDS sects that still buy into it, but they're a very very small minority.

I am sure that they would long to return to the days of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

Why?

I mean, other than "Yeah, I want to have sanctioned sex with lots of women"--which can probably be said of members of ANY religious sect that demands that sex is wrong outside of monogamous marriage--why would you say that? Is there supposed to be some innate, inborn desire exclusive to Mormons or something?

[Grenartia]

Besides, seeing as how so many Mormons buy that slippery slope fallacy bullshit, shouldn't they be jumping for joy for same-sex marriage anyways, seeing as how polygamy is on that slope somewhere?

LDS Mormons discarded that doctrine long ago.

Though there are some non-LDS sects that still buy into it, but they're a very very small minority.

I'm aware. Its called a historical reference.

[IamJohnGalt]

I am disappointed. If things continue this way, chances are that even Alabama will get equal marriage before Italy does.

WHERE'S MY EUROPEAN SUPREMACY ON HUMAN RIGHTS DAMMIT! WHERE'S MY STEREOTYPE OF AMERICA AS A BACKWARDS FUNDIE HELLHOLE! THIS IS NOT HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO GO!

Perhaps the best thing is that most Americans will think all of Europe already has it. We'll beat you to the punch fully thinking we were the last to the party.

The government should not be in the marriage business. The only right anyone has is the right to his or her life. His freedom to act by his own judgement for his own goals without coercion.

Except, it does. Marriage guarantees certain benefits that committed couples NEED. Things like hospital visitation, medical decisions, funeral planning, inheritance, etc. And the cheapest, simplest solution to guaranteeing these necessities is this thing we call the institution of marriage. Every other alternative involves shitloads of time, money, and paperwork (and at least one lawyer) that only a rich person could afford (and even then, the benefits aren't necessarily guaranteed).

Simply put: "Get teh ebil gobment outta marriage" is a Bad Thing ^TM.

Marriage does't guarantee anything. NEED is subjective and irrelevant. WANT would be a better adjective.

[Lithosano]

Perhaps the best thing is that most Americans will think all of Europe already has it. We'll beat you to the punch fully thinking we were the last to the party.



Except, it does. Marriage guarantees certain benefits that committed couples NEED. Things like hospital visitation, medical decisions, funeral planning, inheritance, etc. And the cheapest, simplest solution to guaranteeing these necessities is this thing we call the institution of marriage. Every other alternative involves shitloads of time, money, and paperwork (and at least one lawyer) that only a rich person could afford (and even then, the benefits aren't necessarily guaranteed).

Simply put: "Get teh ebil gobment outta marriage" is a Bad Thing ^TM.

Marriage does't guarantee anything. NEED is subjective and irrelevant. WANT would be a better adjective.

Regardless of the subjectivity of the benefits of marriage (after all, you don't truly NEED clothes, you just WANT clothes.), marriage guarantees a whole shitload of stuff. Over 1,000 federal benefits in fact, and that's not including state benefits.

[IamJohnGalt]

The only right anyone has is the right to his or her life.

So... there is no right to freedom of the press, bodily sovereignity, privacy, vote or equality under the law?

The right to life is the source of all rights.

"The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life." ~ Ayn Rand

[IamJohnGalt]

The government should not be in the marriage business. The only right anyone has is the right to his or her life. His freedom to act by his own judgement for his own goals without coercion.

Which is exactly what the New Jersey government guaranteed with this.

And give me back my name, it was mine first.

"Each person owns his or her own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life and uses his property – as long as he simply respects the equal right of others to do the same." The state can not guarantee this axiom...the individual can.

[Minarchist States]

Supportive to begin with. These rights have not been allowed but taken away from us and it would be natural to let things be as they should. "Why not."

I am kinda irked that people that never been to Jersey are so intent on our politics...but hey...that's politics for you.

Oh yeah Christie is a dunce.

[Grenartia]

Perhaps the best thing is that most Americans will think all of Europe already has it. We'll beat you to the punch fully thinking we were the last to the party.



Except, it does. Marriage guarantees certain benefits that committed couples NEED. Things like hospital visitation, medical decisions, funeral planning, inheritance, etc. And the cheapest, simplest solution to guaranteeing these necessities is this thing we call the institution of marriage. Every other alternative involves shitloads of time, money, and paperwork (and at least one lawyer) that only a rich person could afford (and even then, the benefits aren't necessarily guaranteed).

Simply put: "Get teh ebil gobment outta marriage" is a Bad Thing ^TM.

Marriage does't guarantee anything. NEED is subjective and irrelevant. WANT would be a better adjective.

Except, it does. And the things it guarantee reinforce some of the more basic need on Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

You're demonstrably wrong here.

So... there is no right to freedom of the press, bodily sovereignity, privacy, vote or equality under the law?

The right to life is the source of all rights.

"The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life." ~ Ayn Rand

Which is why we have government. To guarantee the recognition of rights, and to arbitrate when one person violates another's rights. Preventing government from recognizing marriage inherently prevents it from recognizing rights provided by marriage.

[Oaledonia]

My FABULOUS home state, in all it's glory. I've never been more proud :')

[Pensalum]

Yay, I'm happy for them. If only Pennsylvania would follow New Jersey's example, but of course, Tom Corbett won't be having that. We'll just have to wait for the next election.

[Minarchist States]

My FABULOUS home state, in all it's glory. I've never been more proud :')

"Fabulous" as a word is overrated. Try "spunky." That got zing.

[IamJohnGalt]

Marriage does't guarantee anything. NEED is subjective and irrelevant. WANT would be a better adjective.

Regardless of the subjectivity of the benefits of marriage (after all, you don't truly NEED clothes, you just WANT clothes.), marriage guarantees a whole shitload of stuff. Over 1,000 federal benefits in fact, and that's not including state benefits.

The main issue to you is the loot you can mooch. In other words if heterosexual couples were not given certain benefits you would be fine with homosexual couples not having any benefit from the State for marriage. That's exactly what I am saying. Want to be gay and married...fine. Want to be straight and married...fine. Leave my money out of it either way.

[Minarchist States]

Regardless of the subjectivity of the benefits of marriage (after all, you don't truly NEED clothes, you just WANT clothes.), marriage guarantees a whole shitload of stuff. Over 1,000 federal benefits in fact, and that's not including state benefits.

The main issue to you is the loot you can mooch. In other words if heterosexual couples were not given certain benefits you would be fine with homosexual couples not having any benefit from the State for marriage. That's exactly what I am saying. Want to be gay and married...fine. Want to be straight and married...fine. Leave my money out of it either way.

Agreed. So much complications arise out of the ordeal.

[Grenartia]

The main issue to you is the loot you can mooch. In other words if heterosexual couples were not given certain benefits you would be fine with homosexual couples not having any benefit from the State for marriage. That's exactly what I am saying. Want to be gay and married...fine. Want to be straight and married...fine. Leave my money out of it either way.

Agreed. So much complications arise out of the ordeal.

Except saying "Fuck it, lets just scrap the whole thing" like you two are doing creates a worse problem, where people can be barred from visiting spouses in the hospital, making medical decisions for them, making funeral arrangements, and inheriting their property.

[Lithosano]

Regardless of the subjectivity of the benefits of marriage (after all, you don't truly NEED clothes, you just WANT clothes.), marriage guarantees a whole shitload of stuff. Over 1,000 federal benefits in fact, and that's not including state benefits.

The main issue to you is the loot you can mooch. In other words if heterosexual couples were not given certain benefits you would be fine with homosexual couples not having any benefit from the State for marriage. That's exactly what I am saying. Want to be gay and married...fine. Want to be straight and married...fine. Leave my money out of it either way.

Hospital visitation rights, healthcare decision, and the like have nothing to do with money.

Not everything has to do with money. But if you're concerned about money, go live in the woods somewhere. No one to take your "rights" or your money.