Archive for Thursday, October 26, 2006

N.J. court opens door to gay marriage

Lawmakers ordered to offer equal opportunity

October 26, 2006


— New Jersey's highest court opened the door Wednesday to making the state the second in the nation to allow gay marriage, ruling that lawmakers must offer same-sex couples either marriage or something like it, such as civil unions.

In a ruling that fell short of what either side wanted or most feared, the state Supreme Court declared 4-3 that gay couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual ones. The justices gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite the laws.

The ruling is similar to the 1999 high-court ruling in Vermont that led the state to create civil unions, which confer all of the rights and benefits available to married couples under state law.

"Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state Constitution," Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the four-member majority.

The court said the Legislature "must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure" that gives gays all the privileges and obligations married couples have.

The three dissenters argued that the majority did not go far enough. They demanded full marriage for gays.

People rally in Trenton, N.J, as they wait for the New Jersey Supreme Court to release its highly anticipated decision in a case brought by seven gay couples who claim the state constitution entitles them to marry. On Wednesday, the court said that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but left it to lawmakers to legalize same-sex unions.

People rally in Trenton, N.J, as they wait for the New Jersey Supreme Court to release its highly anticipated decision in a case brought by seven gay couples who claim the state constitution entitles them to marry. On Wednesday, the court said that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but left it to lawmakers to legalize same-sex unions.

Gay rights activists had seen New Jersey as a promising place because it is a largely Democratic state in the Northeast. The only state to allow gay marriage is Massachusetts. The only states allowing civil unions are Vermont and Connecticut. New Jersey is also one of just five states that have no law or constitutional amendment expressly banning gay marriage.

If the court had legalized gay marriage outright, the effect could have been more far-reaching, and New Jersey could have become more of a magnet for gay couples than Massachusetts, which has a law barring out-of-state couples from marrying there if their marriages would not be recognized in their home states. New Jersey has no such law.

For gay rights advocates, there was debate on whether the ruling was a victory.

Lara Schwartz, legal director of Human Rights Campaign, said if legislators have to choose between civil unions and marriage, it is a no-lose situation for gay couples. "They get to decide whether it's chocolate or double-chocolate chip," Schwartz said.

Steven Goldstein, executive director of Garden State Equality, New Jersey's main gay rights group, said his organization wants nothing short of marriage. "We get to go from the back of the bus to the middle of the bus," he complained.


Tychoman 11 years, 6 months ago

Gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy. Stop bringing it up.

sublime 11 years, 7 months ago

Pathetic!!!Imagine what those bumpkins do to each other when they are alone.........Think about that the next time you are defending that life style.Do you really think its normal?If so, your a brainwashed idiot.I don't hate gays,I just don't condone that life style.

gr 11 years, 7 months ago

"We get to go from the back of the bus to the middle of the bus," he complained.

First, we want to act.

Then, we want the right.

Now, we want the celebration.

What if two brothers want to "marry" - should they be allowed in NJ to form "civil unions" or whatever? Isn't it their "right". Otherwise, wouldn't that be "unequal dispensation of rights and benefits"?

gr 11 years, 7 months ago


Don't read the following before dinner. Some are right - there's lots I don't (didnt') know about homosexuals!!!

Kodiac 11 years, 7 months ago


Irrelevant question gr but easily dealt with. Already against the law for the heteros to do it so law must be applied equally.

Kodiac 11 years, 6 months ago



I was referring to your earlier post of 6 pm. Not sure where the "ingestion of feces" is coming from.

acg 11 years, 6 months ago

Wow the homophobes and haters are out in full force this morning, aren't they? It must be nice to live such a squeaky clean lifestyle that you can sit on your high horse and judge everyone else. Oh and sublime, your means your, you're means you are. If anyone around here is an idiot, it would be you.

dek 11 years, 6 months ago

Plenty of heteros do some pretty kinky stuff too, and no one seems to think it is the end of the world as we know it. Only missionary position only people should be allowed to marry?

Two people who want to make a commitment to each other is not a problem in my book. I just don't get it.

Kodiac 11 years, 6 months ago

Just so that we are clear here Gr,

I told you that the brother scenario question is irrelevant to what is being discussed in the article. Your agenda and your attempt to equivocate is easily seen. And as Marion rightly points out this isn't really about what is right or wrong, this is about prejudices and imposition.

Porter 11 years, 6 months ago

I agree with Tychoman that polygamy and gay marriage have nothing to do with each other. ...but I'll bite.

Why SHOULD the government tell us we cannot have multiple spouses? Employment benefits/taxation are not set up for that sort of thing....yet. The rest is just the religious angle. Marriage is between a man and a woman - according to YOUR bible. Why does everyone have to do what it says in YOUR bible?

Hey, I couldn't handle more than one wife, but I'm not going to shoot my neighbor for trying it out. I still don't even see how that even effects me.

It's funny how no one wants the government to tell us what to do with our money, but we (the voters) seem to be begging the feds to tell us how to lead our private lives.

If anyone brings up pedophilia, necrophilia, or beastiality one more time, I'm going to freak out. Neither a child, a dead person, nor a doggy can enter into a contract. That's usually taught in about the 7th grade (the contract part, not the beastiality part ;). Settled?

Tychoman 11 years, 6 months ago

No, okay, that's it. Thinker, you and Patriotman have completely lost what little credibility and rationale you ever had. I am no longer going to respond to your outrageous bullcrap that continues to detract from the topic.

You continue to make a mockery of something that is very important to me and thousands of other people in the country. Just remember, karma's a b*tch.

ksmoderate 11 years, 6 months ago

Take it easy, Marion!

Polygamy is a choice. Homosexuality is not.

mom_of_three 11 years, 6 months ago

If two adults want to marry, or form a civil union, it shouldn't matter if it is two women, two men or a man and a women.
I don't see why people in this country are so opposed to giving equal benefits to gay and lesbian couples who choose to support each other. It's not a threat to anyone else's lifestyle or anyone's life.

ksmoderate 11 years, 6 months ago

Take it easy, Rightthinker!

Beastiality is a choice. Homosexuality is not.

werekoala 11 years, 6 months ago


Actually, there's still a lot we don't understand about how much influence various factors such as genetics, upbringing, current circumstances, and conscious decision-making have upon human expressions of sexuality.

But that's really beside the point. The point is, if 2 consenting adults want to enter into a contractual relationship with each other that does not adversely affect others, the gender of the parties involved should matter no more than the races of the parties involved.

Anything else is just nanny-state hypocrisy from the side that used to prize individual liberty. Saying "I approve of X, but not Y, so NO ONE should be allowed to do that."

werekoala 11 years, 6 months ago

Right_thinker is doing a good job of demonstrating why analogies against gay marriage are fundamentally flawed.

"If we let the gays marry, next, people will be marrying their dogs! NAMBLA!!!" So many things wrong with this chain of reasoning:

1) Since neither myself nor anyone I know has ever expressed a desire to marry our own dogs (or another person's dog, for that matter), I have to wonder just how many latent dog-lovers right_thinker hangs out with.
2) The real issue is consensual adults - marriage is, ultimately a contract between two of them. Neither an animal nor a child is mentally capable of making a contract. Seriously, how can a dog or 5-year-old promise to be with you in sickness and in health? They can't even promise to hold it until the next rest stop! 3) The real reason that people bring up bestiality and child rape in relation to homosexuality isn't because they're worried about it, but because they want to link those concepts in the minds of the public. And that's despicable, trying to characterize raping a child as no different than a consensual relationship between 2 adults.

Other examples I've heard include this gem:

"We legislate morality all the time. We say that murder is wrong, and that's a moral judgment!"

True, but you're wrong on 2 counts - first, murder undeniably hurts other people here on Earth, homosexuality has never been proven to do so. And a more fitting analogy would be if we allowed people to murder, but only if they murdered a member of the opposite sex. How much sense would that make?

Kodiac 11 years, 6 months ago

Thank-you Werekoala for your clarity. Gr are you reading any of this (especially Werekoala's number 3)?

ksmoderate 11 years, 6 months ago

Werekoala: Point taken. It's my personal hunch that homosexuality is not a choice on a base level, just as heterosexuality is not either, but I agree with you that there is no conclusive scientific proof of that.

It just irks me that folks like Rightthinker derail this thing by bringing up crap like beastiality and polygamy (and I'm sure pedophilia, necrophilia, etc.).

Rightthinker: I've heard plenty of jokes about people from Texas being "inextricably attracted to animals," and that's about it. Something to the effect of: Welcome to Texas, where the men are men and the sheep are scared!

ksmoderate 11 years, 6 months ago

No offense to any Texans out there -- it's just a joke I've heard.

Porter 11 years, 6 months ago

Hey right_thinker- I thought you were a conservative? Why do you want all these govt regulations on your private life? Guess that makes you a liberal huh?

Or is it that regulations on OTHER people's private lives is ok?

Tychoman 11 years, 6 months ago

Why would the federal government say that? What a ridiculous question.

jonas 11 years, 6 months ago

"Posted by right_thinker (anonymous) on October 27, 2006 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Can I marry a flock of geese? Hows 'bouts a school of fish? Could I marry the squirrel that lives in the tree outside? What about if I married the chigger that just burrowed into my armpit? A small invertabrate?"

You do realize, don't you, that you are comparing an adult, consentual human being, who happens to be gay, to a lower mammal and an insect.

I've heard this argument a lot, and I was wondering how people who use it expect us to believe that they are not bigoted. Because equating someone to an animal due to their sexual disposition, which is the only variable in this equation to differentiate situations, is really an extremely prejudiced, bigoted state of mind. Perhaps you simply haven't taken the time to think about it in this way?

ksmoderate 11 years, 6 months ago


Absolutely. Those "re-programming" camps are spine-tingling. Imagine if they shipped a heterosexual off to a camp to "cure" them into being homosexual! HA!

jonas 11 years, 6 months ago

I didn't marry Bambie! I married Arielle! You didn't even get the right MOVIE! Get your facts straight before you launch off like that, man.

EvaTrujillo 11 years, 6 months ago

The government should rid itself of recognizing marriage. Period. It's a religious sacrament, anyway. Want to marry the table, go to the yellow pages, and find a religion that allows it. Want to marry your sister, again shop for your religion. The government for obvious reasons should not allow health insurance companies to cover children begat from sibling "marriages". I know, too radical. It sure would be nice to file taxes, single or as a dependent, always.

BYOB 11 years, 6 months ago

Maybe one last post from me on this issue. This comes down to love. This is about one committed relationship full of love and respect among TWO PEOPLE. It is about sharing your life with ONE other PERSON, respecting that person and building a wonderful life together. If you can see this any other way, you are immature and obviously homophobic and closed minded. I would not want someone like that voting and deciding what is best for my country--and that is it, the country. Not what's best for that decision maker. The Supreme Court and any other member who passes the right to same-sex marriage is looking out for what is best for all-not just themselves or for their narrow-minded ways. If you can't put yourself in another person's shoes and walk their walk, to be born gay (or whatever their "issues" are), then you have no business deciding on what's right and wrong. Again, I will ask you, right_thinker and anyone else who has such a problem with same-sex marriages, HOW DOES THIS AFFECT YOU?

BYOB 11 years, 6 months ago

That's the most ridiculous response. I will not respond to such.

jcantspell 11 years, 6 months ago

Did you know that one of the most popular forms entertainment for straight mails Is to watch to girls make out And they probably do this in some dark club or basement Or during spring break on a bright sunny day And these guys would probably rather die then kiss another guy

jonas 11 years, 6 months ago

This is you granting yourself more authority than you have the ability to enforce. Methinks you should learn to deal with it.

don_burgess 11 years, 6 months ago

Jonas -

Ya? Well, Methinks that you and Marion are very interested in this particular topic because it hit's home for you both.

Me also thinks that you like to grant yourself the ability to enforce being a retard.


don_burgess 11 years, 6 months ago


Quit trying to recruit people into your sick, perverted sex games which involve large mammels names Terry.

Katara 11 years, 6 months ago

Right_thinker, if you and Patriotman keep the baby, what would you name it?

I've got a pregnant co-worker looking for some name suggestions. Perhaps you could help.

don_burgess 11 years, 6 months ago

Marion -

Do me a favor and quit signing your stupid blogs with your name. We appreciate the "personalized touch", but we already know that you typed the message in the first place, OK?

FYI - Each message begins with a "posted by" link in case that somehow escaped you.

-this is me thanking you in advance for not being redundant anymore.

don_burgess 11 years, 6 months ago

"Did you know that one of the most popular forms entertainment for straight mails...."

Jcantspell - Are you talking about regular US mail or speciality post like UPS or FED Ex?

I had no idea that the delivery business was so sexually oriented...

And so homophobic...

Tychoman 11 years, 6 months ago

To all you morons who insist on comparing gay marriage to incest and bestiality: stop. It just lowers your collective I.Q.

BYOB 11 years, 6 months ago

I registered to ask you all this queston: What difference does it make to you who marries who? What affect does it have on your lives? Gay couples do not marry to have "kinky" sex, or for the sex at all. It all comes down to matters of the heart. I'm sure with all the controverse and hard times and prejudice gay individuals have to deal with that they did not CHOOSE to be gay. It has NOTHING to do with sex. It's all about the connection that two people have, which usually lacks from heterosexual marriages. That is why someone posted previously that the divorce rate will more likely IMPROVE with same-sex marriages because they are marrying for all the right reasons. You will most likely NOT see "drag-queens" and transvestites (sp?) marrying because it is not their lifestyle. These could be the "gays" you picture when you think of same-sex couple marrying. It is nothing like that. They are a level, within themselves, and within each other that I only WISH I could be in with myself and with a heterosexual partner. So NO, I am not gay or a lesbian. I just think the fact that this is such an issue is STUPID. They have feelings and desires to provide for each other in a committed relationship and to know that if they were to spend 50 years with the same person and one of them should die, the surviving partner should be entitled just as a spouse... Find something better to do than to argue about something that has nothing to do with you.

Tychoman 11 years, 6 months ago

Sorry Ramirez I wasn't referring to you. Didn't mean any offense.

moxxie_mama 11 years, 6 months ago

You do realize there are a group of gay men who refer to themselves as Bears?

They're usually the heavier, more masculine trucker looking types with a lot of hair.

I didn't see the previous comment to know if that is what he was referring to.

moxxie_mama 11 years, 6 months ago

Oh and I'm perfectly in support of homosexuals to have absolute equality in all matters.

mom_of_three 11 years, 6 months ago

My mother brought up the animals argument when we discussed the topic. And yes, I would consider her a bigot. She is also against certain races dating.

I wonder how my sister and I didn't turn out just like her -

janeb 11 years, 6 months ago

Why shouldn't they have equality? It isn't like their actions effect anyone else. This is one thing the Government has no call to be involved with.

janeb 11 years, 6 months ago

Posted by Patriotman (anonymous) on October 27, 2006 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals. Equal rights for all guaranteed by the constitution.

Every man and woman has the right to persue marriage.


Patriotman if you are yawning it must be nap time. Night Night sleep tight.

Tychoman 11 years, 6 months ago

Polygamy is an irrelevant issue with gay marriage. Stop bringing it up. You narrowminded morons keep bringing up polygamy. Why? It's an irrelevant issue!

Against gay marriage? DON'T GET ONE!

middleoftheroader 11 years, 6 months ago

New Jersey is opening the door eh? I guess that would be the backdoor...LOL

werekoala 11 years, 6 months ago

Partiotman, right_thinker:

I think it's telling that neither of you is even attempting to give a valid reason why gay people should not be allowed to marry.

You're going on and on about subjects that have nothing to do with the issue at hand - pedophillia, beastiality, and polygamy. And yes, there are perfectly good reasons that these activities are prohibited across the board.

You give the whole slippery-slope arguement, and yet completely fail to see the point: we're just talking about equal rights, not special ones.

jcantspell 11 years, 6 months ago

don_burgess like the name sez icant spell but your prety funny not funny gay but just funny and ya never no you might want to wash your hands after you open your male

Tychoman 11 years, 6 months ago

You are complete and utter morons for making a joke out of this.

packrat 11 years, 6 months ago

"The court said the Legislature "must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure" that gives gays all the privileges and obligations married couples have."

This is a case of judical activism at it's worse. Just like when the Kansas Supreme Court "ordered" the legislature to raise education funding, the New Jersey court is ordering the legislature what to do.

janeb 11 years, 6 months ago

Any hetrosexual male who would like to marry a homosexual male or any hetrosexual female that wants to marry a lesbian is also free to do so. For some to say otherwise is oppressive and tyranny. Marion Shame on you.

carolannfugate 11 years, 6 months ago

Wow that is original and very impressive-NOT

whiteoleander 11 years, 6 months ago

shad*ow (shd) KEY


An area that is not or is only partially irradiated or illuminated because of the interception of radiation by an opaque object between the area and the source of radiation. The rough image cast by an object blocking rays of illumination. See Synonyms at shade. An imperfect imitation or copy. shadows The darkness following sunset. A feeling or cause of gloom or unhappiness: The argument cast a shadow on their friendship.

A nearby or adjoining region; vicinity: grew up in the shadow of the ballpark. A dominating presence or influence: spent years working in the shadow of the lab director.

A darkened area of skin under the eye. Often used in the plural. An incipient growth of beard that makes the skin look darker. A shaded area in a picture or photograph. A mirrored image or reflection. A phantom; a ghost.

One, such as a detective or spy, that follows or trails another. A constant companion. Sports A player who guards an opponent closely. A faint indication; a foreshadowing. A vestige or inferior form: shadows of their past achievements. An insignificant portion or amount; a trace: beyond a shadow of a doubt. Shelter; protection: under the shadow of their corporate sponsor. VERB: shadowed , shadowing , shadows VERB: tr.

To cast a shadow on; shade. To make gloomy or dark; cloud. To represent vaguely, mysteriously, or prophetically. To darken in a painting or drawing; shade in. To follow, especially in secret; trail. Sports To guard (an opponent) closely throughout the playing area, especially in ice hockey. VERB: intr.

To change by gradual degrees. To become clouded over as if with shadows: Her face shadowed with sorrow. ADJECTIVE:

Not having official status: a shadow government of exiled leaders; a shadow cabinet.

ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, from Old English sceaduwe, oblique case of sceadu, shade, shadow

OTHER FORMS: shadow*er (Noun)

WORD HISTORY: Shade and shadow are not only related in meaning; historically they are the same word. In Old English, the ancestor of Modern English spoken a thousand years ago, nouns were inflected; that is, they had different forms depending on how they were used in a sentence. One of the inflected forms of the Old English noun sceadu, translatable as either "shade" or "shadow," was sceaduwe; this form was used when the word was preceded by a preposition (as in in sceaduwe, "in the shade, in shadow"). As time went on these two forms of the same word were interpreted as two separate words. The same thing happened to other Old English words, too: our mead and meadow come from two different case-forms of the same Old English word for "meadow."

whiteoleander 11 years, 6 months ago


noun Comparative darkness that results from the blocking of light rays: penumbra, shade, umbra, umbrage. See light A supernatural being, such as a ghost: apparition, bogey, bogeyman, bogle, eidolon, ghost, phantasm, phantasma, phantom, revenant, shade, specter, spirit, visitant, wraith. Informal: spook. Regional: haunt. See beings, supernatural An agent assigned to observe and report on another: watcher. Informal: tail. See investigate A slight amount or indication: breath, dash, ghost, hair, hint, intimation, semblance, shade, soupçon, streak, suggestion, suspicion, taste, tinge, touch, trace, whiff, whisper. Informal: whisker. See big, show verb To shelter, especially from light: screen, shade. See protection To make dim or indistinct: becloud, bedim, befog, blear, blur, cloud, dim, dull, eclipse, fog, gloom, mist, obfuscate, obscure, overcast, overshadow. See clear To make dark or darker: adumbrate, darken, shade. See light To keep (another) under surveillance by moving along behind: dog, follow, track, trail. Informal: bird-dog, tail. See precede

Katara 11 years, 6 months ago


No self-abuse before getting married to yourself. That would be premarital sex.

Steve Jacob 11 years, 6 months ago

Homosexuality is a choice. Nothing will ever prove otherwise.

The gays have to understand pushing gay marrige will divide this country more then abortion. And it will help the right take over, after the mistakes of Iraq and Bush are in the past.

roger_o_thornhill 11 years, 6 months ago

That's a bad joke, middleoftheroader. Not living up to your name.

Anyways--nothing like an inflammitory, misleading headline. Having been born in the seventies, I learned about most of the widespread bigotry in this country in textbooks. Not that I've lived in an 'enlightened' era, but I also haven't lived in an era of 'whites only' either. It seemed odd to me how 'regular' folks could go along with such nonsense. Now it seems like I have an example. On an old Law and Order one of the characters had said something like "why not let them be miserable like the rest of us?" Seems like a good sentiment--who cares what other people do? Worry about yourselves. Just like you (hopefully) have learned: Black men hopped up on the reefers aren't going to come rape all the white women, and 'the gays' aren't going to force themselves on you or try to 'convert' your children or any of that same kind of crap that seems to fuel pointless bigotry.

Patriotman--was that list of married folks part of 'Numbers' from the bible? Isn't that the one with all the 'begats'? By the way, how did the world's population come from two people who only had boys? A little Eve-Cain action outside the Garden of Eden? He wasn't called Abel for nothing (you know Abel-Able)he he. Plus why stop with just people, right? A man marrying a cow? Why not? A woman marrying her car? Whatever! It'd be a freeforall. WooHoo!!!

hottruckinmama 11 years, 6 months ago

Good Lord! I guess I've been away for awhile! Last time I checked in right_thinker and patriotman were both manly men and now there talking about getting married and having a baby??!! Ya'll been living in Lawrence too long I'm thinking! Sorry guys. No offense intended. Just couldn't resist :):)

werekoala 11 years, 6 months ago


Equal they most certainly do not have. Equal would be - we have a legal contract between 2 consenting adults set up in our society, and the government does not discriminate based on the parties' gender, religion, ethnicity, or social class.

As a side question: do you think the government should be able to say these 2 people can't marry based on their religions? Their races? Their social classes? Then why on the basis of their genders?

you really can't make an argument against gay marriage that wasn't, at its root, used against interracial marriage. And it was wrong to use them then, and it is wrong to use them now.

Special would be saying that only people of different genders can have their partners automatically allowed to make end-of-life-decisions for eachother. Special would be saying only partnerships of certain genders will recieve tax credits. Special would be saying only partnerships of certain genders will be allowed to adopt children, or provide each other health coverage, or be allowed to pick up eachothers' children from school.

Oh, wait. Someone already has those special treatments. It's you.

So you're right, things should be equal, and we should start treating all lifelong partnerships the same. Should straight people give up marriage? Or let gay people in?

werekoala 11 years, 6 months ago


Do you know what a slippery-slope fallacy is? Because in your post you say there isn't one, and then you turn around and make one.

No one is saying that you are uninhibited in expressing your sexuality, or that you should be. Anything most certainly does NOT go. You can't have sex or be naked in public, and you can't rape those unwilling or unable to consent.

Gay marriage is the end of the discussion, most certainly. You're the one who keeps trying to change it to something else, because you know there's no good reason not to let gay people marry. So you start talking about beastiality, or necrophilia, or pedophilia or whatever other perversions you have crawling through your brain instead.

Gay marriage will no more lead to beastiality than interracial marriage led to child rape. You'd be wrong to link the second two back then, just as you're wrong to link the first two now.

Tychoman 11 years, 6 months ago

WHAT equal rights? The universe is about to collapse from the inconceivable load of B.S. you and rightthinker are unloading on this board.

Tychoman 11 years, 6 months ago

Shut up, thinker. No one chooses their sexual preferences.

Gay agenda....are you serious?!

weeslicket 11 years, 6 months ago

Posted by right_thinker (anonymous) on October 27, 2006 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Can I marry a flock of geese? Hows 'bouts a school of fish? Could I marry the squirrel that lives in the tree outside? What about if I married the chigger that just burrowed into my armpit? A small invertabrate?

i think all of these possibilities are preferable to your postings. i would encourage you to explore dating first, though.

Tychoman 11 years, 6 months ago

Patriotman you neanderthal, ONCE AGAIN I will EMPHASIZE that I'm not a woman as you continue to imply. I can't believe you two trolls are still here harassing me.

And the back door jokes can stop, please.

Tychoman 11 years, 6 months ago

No. I will not forgive you. I never have, conservativeman. You said that my "gender is questionable"? That's one of the most insulting, offensive things anyone has ever said to me. I won't forgive you because you're nothing but a filthy little troll who does nothing but p!ss people off. I won't forgive you because you insist on comparing gay marriage to bestiality, necrophilia, and polygamy.

It's not about special rights, it's about EQUAL RIGHTS, you closeminded bigot!

janeb 11 years, 6 months ago

Posted by weeslicket (anonymous) on October 29, 2006 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by right_thinker (anonymous) on October 27, 2006 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Can I marry a flock of geese? Hows 'bouts a school of fish? Could I marry the squirrel that lives in the tree outside? What about if I married the chigger that just burrowed into my armpit? A small invertabrate?

Now really can the flea in your armpit sign the paperwork? Do they have proof of citizenship? A SS #? Please you win the award for the weakest argument yet.

Tychoman 11 years, 6 months ago

All you're full of is disrespect, conservativeman. It's so obvious it's you, that stupid little "Tychoman is a woman heehee!" That was the most insincere apology I've ever seen.

You haven't stated an opinion on gay marriage. All you do is make references and create tangents on bestiality, pedophilia and polygamy. Gay marriage doesn't affect you directly at all, why are you so against it?

Against gay marraige? DON'T GET ONE!

janeb 11 years, 6 months ago

I am so sorry if I offended any Chiggers or partners of chiggers on the forum.
Now I will ask again can they participate in the needed red tape to get married or do they just stck to the yellow tape? :)

carolannfugate 11 years, 6 months ago

No I think yellow strips are for Flies not Fleas. Dip is for Fleas. Insecticide is for Chiggers. But I do understand your anger in the oppressive nature of the generalizations. Shame on you Jane!

Godot 11 years, 6 months ago

If gays want to saddle themselves with the baggage that comes long with marriage, good for them. Let them join in on the misery. If they think the extra rights and benefits associated with marriage are worth it the loss of freedom and independence, great. They will soon learn that the trade-off was not worth it.

Godot 11 years, 6 months ago

If gays really wanted to achieve equal status for their relationships, they would give up on the marriage thing and work to change the tax code.

It is the tax code that favors married couples over non-married ones. It is an artificial construct of American society. It is social engineering at its worst.

Make everyone equal under the tax code, regardless of marital status or status as a parent, allow individuals to name their chosen beneficiaries of their retirement savings and social security, and this entire conflict disappears.

Godot 11 years, 6 months ago

Eliminate the income tax, replace it with a national sales tax, and many of the conflicts in our society will become moot.

Tychoman 11 years, 6 months ago

Granted. That reminds me of the old saying "Isn't it all just the same sex anyway? What does it matter?"

middleoftheroader 11 years, 6 months ago

roger_o_thornhill. the joke was funny whether in bad taste or not. many jokes are funny that are in bad taste. but the point is they are jokes. the point isnt that they are in bad taste. and for the record on this issue... i dont see why any number of adults of the same gender cant have sex with each other.. it isnt my business whether i agree with it or not. as far as receiving benefits through a legally recognized marriage license. im not even sure spouses of opposite genders should get any special legal benefits under the law. i cant think of any anyway. can anyone give me an example of a benefit that should be afforded to spouses of opposite genders, BECAUSE they are of opposite genders? the more i think about this issue the more i think that those who are for legal recognition of same sex marriages really arent so much worried about receiving benefits as they are about receiving acceptance by those who dont currently accept them. changing laws wont change hearts and minds. it never has and never will.

Linda Endicott 11 years, 6 months ago

If gays want to marry, then they should be able to. They should have the same rights as anyone else, to marry whomever they want.

As for your pronouncement about polygamy, RT, I really see no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to have multiple marriage long as those partners are all consenting ADULTS, and as long as they can prove that they can support all those people in one family, without going on the public dole.

The main thing I have against polygamy right now is that far too often older men prey on girls that are underage, and they have more wives and children than they can support, and the children end up on welfare. That's not right, either. Same as every time you say that people shouldn't have children if they can't afford to raise them.

And why is polygamy only geared toward men? Why shouldn't women be allowed to have more than one husband if they want to?

You've got a point there, Godot. While I think gays should have the right to marry just as straight people do, perhaps instead they should be rallying to abolish ALL marriage.

I'll bet if the government was working to abolilsh all marriage, all you homophobes would be crying foul, and talking about how they wanted to take your rights away.

If you want to do away with words that identify gender, Patriotman (you'll have to change your ID, you know), then I'll simply call you "It", or "Hey, you". Works for me.

gr 11 years, 6 months ago

I'm a little perplexed here. Except for me confusing Kodiac's response to the wrong post, I could find no one to even address the link I posted. I expected homosexuals to deny the credibility of the New England Journal of Medicine. And, I expected the rest to jump on the idea that the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force won't even give their own employee's "partners" benefits because they are 'prohibitively expensive'. Why should anyone else give homosexual's partners benefits if their own group won't!

But, I couldn't find any response - it was basically ignored.

Am I the only one who finds the whole concept of eating someone's feces completely disgusting and think there should be an outrage? Should I conclude that both homos and heteros do this repulsive thing as to why there's no response?

I just won't yield.

You can pull my fingernails out. But, I just won't eat someone's feces.


Just won't.

I don't want equality.

Don't want to be "disproportionate consumers of healthcare services". Don't want nearly double domestic violence. Don't want "greater risk for psychiatric disorders". Don't want "increased risk of HIV infection, hepatitis, HPV and all other STDs, anal, prostate and colon cancers, eating disorders, depression and anxiety, and use alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drugs more often." Don't want "significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS", "gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices." Don't want "increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer". Don't want a life expectancy at 20 to be "8 to 20 years less than for all men." Don't want to be part of a 2 percent of the population but with the "most serious STDs, with incidences among homosexuals of diseases like gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis A and B, cytomegalovirus, shigellosis, giardiasis, amoebic bowel disease and herpes far exceeding their presence in the general population." Nope, don't want to ingest urine and feces. Nope, not even if it's from less than "23 different men each year". Don't want 100 annual (and 72 anal!) sex partners.

(puke break)

gr 11 years, 6 months ago

Don't want to be "19 times more likely to have had syphilis, twice as likely to have had genital warts, four times as likely to have had scabies, seven times more likely to have had infection from vaginal contact, 29 times more likely to have had oral infection from vaginal contact and 12 times more likely to have had an oral infection from penile contact"

Don't want "more than 500 different sexual partners in a lifetime." Don't want to be an AIDS victim with "more than 1,100 lifetime sexual partners".

Maybe "only 3 percent of homosexuals had fewer than 10 lifetime sexual partners" but that's not very good odds.

I'll take inequality.

"Gay marriage doesn't affect you directly at all, why are you so against it?"

Actually, it very much directly hurts me. While what happens in the privacy of one's bedroom is hard to legislate, though it is currently being done, giving the public blessing of such dastardly behavior does affect me. Such behavior increases the background level of disease.

Let's tie in vaccinations. There are those who think everyone must have a vaccination because somehow that will cause a greater risk to those who have been vaccinated. Either you would have to agree that idea is flawed, or you would have to agree that behavior, which increases the levels of disease, causes risk to the rest of us.

Homosexuals have a direct cost to my wallet. They cause health care costs to increase which result in the rest of us having to paying higher premiums. They may result in reduced social security benefits.

So, yes, gay "marriage" does directly affect my health, my paycheck, and my out of pocket costs. That's why I'm against the celebration of those who make the choice to practice such despicable behavior. If they want to do such things in the privacy of their own bedrooms, that's their problem. But, don't expect the rest of us to have any desire to condone and celebrate in the form of marriage such antics, nor want to have equality of their practices nor equality of their health.

Linda Endicott 11 years, 6 months ago

I guess, then, gr, that you could also say that heterosexual men who cheat on their wives (or vice versa) affect me as well, with increasing health care costs. Shame on those damn heterosexual men.

Gee, I wonder why gays have a greater risk for psychiatric disorders? Could it possibly be because they're constantly discriminated against and have to take all kinds of hateful attitudes and behaviors from people like you?

And you ARE naive if you think homosexual men are the only ones who apparently enjoy anal sex. Why don't you ask all the women on this forum how many of them have had their husbands ask them about it.

gr 11 years, 6 months ago


Well, of course shame on them! But, you don't see them wanting to create a celebration of harems for "equal rights".

Since you ignored the most obvious denial and trying to use distraction, shall we assume that you think it is proper to eat someone's feces?

G R O S S ! ! !

Linda Endicott 11 years, 6 months ago

In this case, silence is not concurrence. It's simply laziness.

Believe what you want to believe, Patriotman. The rest of us rational posters know that there aren't as many homophobes out there as you would like.

Thank heavens.

Tychoman 11 years, 6 months ago

What an astounding lack of logic and understanding you have, gr. And that's the first time someone's referred to me as dastardly. Classy.

Endorsing gay marriage won't change healthcare costs, if anything it will help lower them because of more availability of insurance.

Linda Endicott 11 years, 6 months ago

Actually, gr, you are the only one here who has even mentioned feces, and I'm not sure where you got the idea from. Even your own link didn't say anything about eating feces.

So I would assume you see the Feces Monster in every dark corner, and obsess about him.

I bet you think children should be banned as well, because they eat boogers. Hey! Come to think of it, sometimes small children eat feces! They eat dirt! They eat bugs! They eat ear wax! Ban all the children!

(And no, mom can't always be quick enough to stop the little buggers.)

I'll bet that's what happened to you. Your mama marked you for life by seeing a baby eat poop while she was pregnant with you.

Personally, I don't think there are any gay men out there who make a practice of eating poop. I think that's pretty much a figment of YOUR imagination.

I have seen lots of men put the most disgusting things in their mouth and eat them, and I'm talking about food here.

Tychoman 11 years, 6 months ago

"Nothing in the liberal gay community suggests they'll be faithful to their partner. Instead they'll continue to have multiple partners and engage in dangerous sexual practices. Bug chasers and drug users being some of the most active."

Patriotman, how DARE you spew that filth! You should be banned for saying such derogatory things that ARE NOT true about the gay life. You have no idea what you're talking about. If that's really how we are, then I suggest we take all rights and freedoms from you straight people! You have multiple partners and engage in dangerous sexual practices. Bug chasers and drug users? Being tried in the courts right now.


gr, you're so revolting "They justfy their other actions by what dogs do." I threw up a little in my mouth when I read your crock of B.S. Where on earth do you think that homosexuals are justifying their actions by "what dogs do"?

yourworstnightmare 11 years, 6 months ago

The Kansas Defense of Marriage amendment states that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Can someone enlighten me as to how the State of Kansas defines "man" and "woman"?

What is one defining characteristic of a "man" or of a "woman" without which one is not a "man" or a "woman"?

Seriously. Anyone out there who can define these terms?

Tychoman 11 years, 6 months ago

You honestly don't know what a bug chaser is? To humor you in case you're serious, a bug chaser is someone who deliberately catches STD's, I don't know why.

Linda Endicott 11 years, 6 months ago

Oh, yes, Patriotman, we know that ALL drug users are gay, don't we?

What a bunch of BS.

Tychoman 11 years, 6 months ago

What you judge to be macro is nothing but a cliche and stereotype, you ignorant clown.

What about me has not changed that incorrect perception? What I've said on this forum and the words you and I have exchanged have nothing to do with that perception in the first place.

You big narrowminded buffoon.

Tychoman 11 years, 6 months ago

I haven't given any stereotypes of conservatives or Christians.

Read your own post.

Ignorant troglodyte.

gr 11 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Tychoman 11 years, 6 months ago

What the hell are you talking about? You keep lowering yourself as a troll with every letter.

Katara 11 years, 6 months ago

With apologies to TMBG ...

Patriotman, Patriotman Doing the things a puppet can What's he like? It's not important Patriotman

Is he depressed or is he a mess? Does he feel totally worthless? Who came up with Patriotman? Degraded man, Patriotman

Again, my apologies to TMBG. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gay marriage does not affect me nor any others who have a hetero marriage.

Patriotman wants people to believe that it will increase insurance rates. What a fallacy! Patriotman cannot even tell how that would happen.

If gays do indeed have a bigger risk to health because of their "lifestyle" (whatever that is supposed to mean), then one would think that insurance companies, being the greedy corporate beings that they are, would have already increased insurances rates on gays & lesbians.

Obesity poses a bigger threat to Mr. Patriotman's insurance premiums.

Smoking poses a bigger threat to Mr. Patriotman's insurance premiums.

Drug addiction poses a bigger threat to Mr. Patriotman's insurance premiums.

Anger control issues pose not only a bigger threat to Mr. Patriotman's insurance premiums but to his health as well as it looks like he might stroke out.

Anyone else notice that Mr. Patriotman has yet to back up any of his assertions with any facts?

Tychoman 11 years, 6 months ago

You call yourself "wise"? And show where I've said "Christian fundies," it's your point, you find it in my history.

And referring to far-right-leaning Christian fundamentalists isn't stereotyping the entire conservative or Christian demographic, you moron. Hence the label "far-right-leaning fundamentalist." I have dozens of conservative and Christian friends.

Ignorance. You're so full of it, among other things.

"Gay marriage is not normal." Who are you to define "normal"? I have incredibly loving and caring heterosexual parents and they think I turned out fine.

If marriage was for reproduction, as you have stated, then everyone should be having as many babies as possible. Couples that don't produce as many children as possible should be annulled.

My God you're such a fascist. You and the other 70% of Kansas are narrowminded and bigoted. Your idea of "traditional values" disgusts me.

Just because I'm gay doesn't mean I'm "messed up," or "socially retarded," you stupid bitter little person.

Katara 11 years, 6 months ago

According to Patriotman, only those that are fertile & are capable of reproducing get the privilege of marriage.

Women, if you are barren, you may not marry according to Patriotman.

Men, if you shoot blanks, you may not marry according to Patriotman.

Mandatory fertility tests for all those applying for a marriage license because Patriotman thinks only those who can reproduce are worthy of the institution.

How many children do you have Patriotman?

Katara 11 years, 6 months ago

From State v. Phelps, 226 Kan. 371, 598 P.2d 180 (Kan. 1979) (Kansas Supreme Court opinion) courtesy of Wikipedia:

"The trial became an exhibition of a personal vendetta by Phelps against Carolene Brady. His examination was replete with repetition, badgering, innuendo, belligerence, irrelevant and immaterial matter, evidencing only a desire to hurt and destroy the defendant. The jury verdict didn't stop the onslaught of Phelps. He was not satisfied with the hurt, pain, and damage he had visited on Carolene Brady."

Does this (posting) behavior sound familiar? (hint: Patriotman)

Katara 11 years, 6 months ago

Of course, I don't mean to imply that Patriotman is Fred Phelps, just that the behavior is very similar. Perhaps they attend the same church?

Katara 11 years, 6 months ago

You can call me whatever you like, Patriotman.

Plus, in honor of HGA, it is you're Phelps, not your Phelps.

Your is a possessive. You do not own Phelps (although it could be possible that you do). You're is a contraction implying that you are Phelps, which I don't think you are, although your behavior is most definitely"phelp-ish".

Lowest common denominator, huh. Perhaps you'd (another one of the those gosh-darned contractions) like to take a look a your (another possessive) comment history.

You seem to know a lot about the lowest common denominator. You've hit it so many times.

Tychoman 11 years, 6 months ago

You can't use that 70%/30% statistic as a weapon because that's only 70% of THOSE WHO VOTED. But if you do want to use that statistic, fine: 70% of those who voted are wrong.


I've resorted to calling you well-deserved names because you have resorted to calling me socially retarded, immoral, and a bigot, among other things. Merely returning the favor.

Once again, zero argument from you, Patriotman. How can you call yourself a patriot when you so much hate the diversity that this country stands for? Hypocrite.

Katara 11 years, 6 months ago

Teehee Teehee! You are so paranoid.

I've decided on my Halloween costume now. I'm going as you! I'll wear my undies on the outside. Pin a big "P" on my chest and get a nice new tinfoil hat to complete the outfit.

I bet I'll win the best costume at work tomorrow! Woohoo!

Tychoman 11 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

gr 11 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Katara 11 years, 6 months ago

Out of 1,975,425 people aged 18 & older in Kansas (based on the 2000 census data), only about 600,000 people voted (figures loosely based on which give the numbers at 97% of the vote being reported totaling 559,234).

70% of 600,000 (which is my rounded up figured) = 420,000 voted yes to ban gay marriages.

Not even close to the 70% of Kansans figure you like to put out and mislead people with.

So out of the entire population of Kansas, only 21% (420,000 [& I rounded up to give you the advantage] divided by 1,975,425 total population 18 and over) voted to ban gay marriages.

You presume to know the minds of those who did not vote which I would venture to guess that if gay marriage was such a hot topic and they were so worried about those gays getting uppity and demanding marriage, they would have found a way to get to a voting booth or utilize other methods the state offers for voting.

Not such a significant figure there anymore, Paranoidman.

Katara 11 years, 6 months ago

21% of the total state population aged 18 & older voted to ban gay marriage.

Sounds like tyranny of the minority to me, don't you agree Patriotman?

gr 11 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

gr 11 years, 6 months ago

So, if you don't want to face the facts, you censor them. Even if it's only a quote from the link and numerous quotes from other posters in their attempt to justify homosexual's choice of behavior by what animals do.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.