Its not about civil rights, its about updating/changing the definition of marriage from being about procreation to being about love.

FlyingLizardOfDoom: changing the definition of marriage from being about procreation

A definition it has never had. Thanks for contributing literally nothing to the conversation.

kronicfeld: FlyingLizardOfDoom: changing the definition of marriage from being about procreation

A definition it has never had. Thanks for contributing literally nothing to the conversation.

For all of human civilization, marriage was about procreation and creating heirs. Having it be about love is a relatively new concept.

FlyingLizardOfDoom: For all of human civilization, marriage was about procreation and creating heirs.

Which is why it's always been denied to the infertile and sterile.

FlyingLizardOfDoom: kronicfeld: FlyingLizardOfDoom: changing the definition of marriage from being about procreation

A definition it has never had. Thanks for contributing literally nothing to the conversation.

For all of human civilization, marriage was about procreation and creating heirs. Having it be about love is a relatively new concept.

Not so new that this is what the issue is about now. We've been letting couples past child-rearing age marry for quite some time.

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Its not about civil rights, its about updating/changing the definition of marriage from being about procreation to being about love.

Even if true, how is that a bad thing?

I now have a crush on the mayor of Newark. This frightens me. Beautifully stated, sir.

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Its not about civil rights, its about updating/changing the definition of marriage from being about procreation to being about love.

Why are those things mutually exclusive?

MorrisBird: I now have a crush on the mayor of Newark. This frightens me. Beautifully stated, sir.

Yeah, me too.

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Its not about civil rights, its about updating/changing the definition of marriage from being about procreation to being about love.

Wow. You got owned pretty quickly. And rightfully so. What a ridiculous point.

coco ebert: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Its not about civil rights, its about updating/changing the definition of marriage from being about procreation to being about love.

Why are those things mutually exclusive?

I never said they were. However the main claim against homosexual marriage was that "Adam and Steve" cant physically reproduce. I say just pass a federal law allowing it and get on with the next issue. Sometimes it pisses me off when aging members of my own party wanna re-fight Civil Rights Act, Roe v Wade, and the Prop 8 decision... they are settled law, and have been for a while. Lets get back to what really matters, like kicking that commie terrist-hatin' mooslim nigg** out of our WHITE house. (Did I get the rant right?)

FlyingLizardOfDoom: For all of human civilization, marriage was about procreation and creating heirs. Having it be about love is a relatively new concept.

Uh, go look up laws on marrying your first cousin. Many states permit it ONLY if you can't breed.

MorrisBird: I now have a crush on the mayor of Newark. This frightens me. Beautifully stated, sir.

He's been one of the best things for Newark in quite some time.

/very good mayor

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Its not about civil rights, its about updating/changing the definition of marriage from being about procreation to being about love.

I get what you are saying here and I don't want to jump down your throat because I think your point is that the state ought to get away from matters of the heart, that it's an overreach to try to dictate what a family is. But I think you are ignoring the fact that many straight couples never have children, and that many gay couples do. In fact, one of the strongest arguments in favor of gay marriage is to support the kids they are raising. To give those families legal protection and to recognize the tremendous difficulties that all parents face and offer them formal standing in the community as people who are doing something necessary and good. Well, that and the fact that no citizen should face a greater test of worthiness than another by virtue of something random and meaningless.

Add me to the crushing hard on Booker camp.

Planted reporter with planted question. The notes and quotes were obvious. Not saying it shouldn't have been said, it was just blatantly scripted.

ginandbacon:

Add me to the crushing hard on Booker camp.

I would join you, but I'm too busy crushing on Christine Gregoire at the moment.

/Washington State resident, and right now, very proud of that fact.

FloydA: ginandbacon:

Add me to the crushing hard on Booker camp.

I would join you, but I'm too busy crushing on Christine Gregoire at the moment.

/Washington State resident, and right now, very proud of that fact.

I can crush multiple times. Sign me up for her too. She's totes awesome.

Its not about civil rights, its about updating/changing the definition of marriage from being about procreation to being about love.

Yeah fark those 60 year olds who get married

2wolves: Planted reporter with planted question. The notes and quotes were obvious. Not saying it shouldn't have been said, it was just blatantly scripted.

I'm slightly less cynical about the whole thing. He knew he was going to get asked the question, and he new he had to have a good answer. It wasn't planted. If I'm a reporter in that room, you bet your ass I'm going to ask that question.

If the voters have no business deciding whether to change the definition of marriage, then who does get to decide?

SkinnyHead: If the voters have no business deciding whether to change the definition of marriage, then who does get to decide?

The courts.

Not been paying attention?

Chris Christie vetoed civil rights.

Chris Christie punted. He knows a referendum will pass in his state. Cory Booker knows it'll pass, too. The legislature knows a referendum will pass, and now they're in the position of choosing between taking up to two years to override the veto or taking six months to set up the referendum now.

If it really is about civil rights, they'll set up the referendum since that's the quickest route to legalizing same-sex marriage. If it's just about the usual Jersey political dick-waving, they'll sit on their hands for a year or so and try for the override in a gubernatorial election year.

And then when the referendum passes and the GOP jesusbot circular firing squad goes down in flames this November, Christie is positioned very nicely for 2016.

SkinnyHead: If the voters have no business deciding whether to change the definition of marriage, then who does get to decide?

For f*ck's sake, take a day off.

Lionel Mandrake: SkinnyHead: If the voters have no business deciding whether to change the definition of marriage, then who does get to decide?

The courts.

Not been paying attention?

What happens when US Supreme Court reiterates that there is no federal constitutional right to a same-sex marriage? Will that put an end to the argument that voters have no business deciding the issue?

kronicfeld: FlyingLizardOfDoom: For all of human civilization, marriage was about procreation and creating heirs.

Which is why it's always been denied to the infertile and sterile.

I noticed you didn't get a response to this.

He must've just overlooked it.

/It's about RELIGION!
//Which is why it's always denied to atheists.

I don't understand why people are still fighting this. Chris Christie and people like him are on the wrong side of history. There are certainly a large number of people who want to deny civil rights to people they don't like, but there's less and less all the time. Many of the younger generation are already looking on in horror at the amount of bigotry and hatred that they are attempting to maintain in law. They will lose, no matter which way it comes about. The much quoted and paraphrased sentiment that the arc of history is long but it bends towards justice is absolutely correct. And when they lose that's how they will be remembered; as the hate filled bigots they are attempting to restrict civil rights for a class of citizens they have decided are second class because they are somehow Other than them.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the next Governor of New Jersey.

SkinnyHead: Lionel Mandrake: SkinnyHead: If the voters have no business deciding whether to change the definition of marriage, then who does get to decide?

The courts.

Not been paying attention?

What happens when US Supreme Court reiterates that there is no federal constitutional right to a same-sex marriage? Will that put an end to the argument that voters have no business deciding the issue?

I think if this discrimination dies in the Supreme Court, it dies like this:

Straight, legally married couple in New York gets X federal rights/benefits with marriage.
Gay, legally married couple in New York gets no federal rights/benefits with marriage.

Equal protection for the win.

The mayor here is absolutely right. Civil rights should NEVER be up for popular vote. The US Constitution is designed to protect the rights of the minority from the passions of the majority. Otherwise, the Founders would have created a direct democracy. Not only are the people against same-sex marriage on the wrong side of history, they lack a basic understanding the principals of the United States and human rights.

principles of...
Damn it typing fingers and failure to proof read.

kronicfeld: SkinnyHead: If the voters have no business deciding whether to change the definition of marriage, then who does get to decide?

For f*ck's sake, take a day off.

I haven't seen him in months. he must get only a few hours of Fark time a month while he's in the joint.

Mentat: Ladies and Gentlemen, the next Governor of New Jersey.

As a very moderate and pragmatic guy who thinks first about "what's best for the people", I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

/as I said earlier, he's doing great things for Newark. Unlike most before him.

Cory Booker is a national rising star of the Democratic Party and, I would think, thought to be the probable challenger to Christie for the governor's mansion next election. He wouldn't miss an opportunity to get that campaign started a little early, hehe.