Lackofname: Also at many points during history, gays were able to marry - China, Ancient Rome and Greece, and some Native American and Mexican tribes. So, it hasn't been about that "for all of human civilization".

And Skyrim.

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

Marriage has never really been about either.

It's so men could ensure dynastic lineage and restrict sexual access to women.

Marriage, in its purest essence, is a property deed (the property being women).

Marriage has always been about land and property. The church only got into it because they wanted a cut.

jcooli09: What is it about right wingers that they demand the right to oppress other people?

The traditional definition of marriage does not oppress anyone.

Since when has the government decided why people get married? It's funny that the people who want government "off of their backs" want more regulation of peoples lives, and less ability for people to make their own decisions.

Plus a fabulous documentary about Booker's first run for mayor was made and nominated for an Oscar. Sadly it's very representative of modern American politics.

SkinnyHead: jcooli09: What is it about right wingers that they demand the right to oppress other people?

The traditional definition of marriage does not oppress anyone.

Just ask Henry VIII.

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 exactly. It was expected, but not wholly about. It was about property and lineage. All wealth followed lines of progression and was able to be split and combined via marriage.

Hence all that royal inbreeding and serfs/slaves not being allowed to marry.

Rambino: Mugato: Marriage has always been about land and property. The church only got into it because they wanted a cut.

I thought marriage was about family alliances.

Now we're just splitting hairs.

Wow, SkinnyHead is still around? How many times has he been schooled on this issue and still refuses to accept it?

You can't vote to strip people's civil rights. You can't force your religious beliefs onto others. Would you like your right to free speech put up to a vote? Or perhaps the rights of blacks to marry whites?

These are the bedrocks of American society. This only bothers you when it conflicts with your 2000-year old sand cult teachings, or when the party you defend without reason cynically decides it'll win them more votes if they oppose it.

And it's either a losing or break-even issue now with most Americans, anyway. Gay marriage is going to be legal in America. The GOP should be distancing themselves from their shameful past of being on the wrong side of history on this one, not still fighting tooth-and-nail to stop the inevitable. But as a Democrat, I support their foolish efforts 100% - keep fighting against gays and women. You will lose every major election until you stop.

KWess: Isn't one of the reasons that you don't want to go the referendum route - besides the fact that it's unseemly to hand out 'rights' by popular opinion - that if you have a referendum on some issue, can't you just go ahead and have another at some later time to overturn it?

Sure, but the legislature's not going to go schizo and flip on this particular issue. Once the referendum passes...and the polls indicate it will...it's done.

Also, Cory Booker and Chris Christie are rising stars only because they are following a couple of out-and-out crooks (Sharpe James and Jon Corzine, respectively), and the rest of New Jersey politics is a seething cesspit of corruption, weaselry and incompetence.

Good jorb!

He's so well spoken.

*ducks*

GhostFish: SkinnyHead: jcooli09: What is it about right wingers that they demand the right to oppress other people?

The traditional definition of marriage does not oppress anyone.

The traditional form that you're referring to came about in societies where LGBT people were openly shunned, tortured and murdered. Do you not understand that if those people had been treated humanely from the start then marriage would have been open to them from the beginning?

Your" traditional" form has only persisted for so long because of the behavior of an oppressive majority.

Doesn't NJ recognize civil unions? Why can't they be happy with civil unions and quit trying to change the traditional definition of the word marriage? What's so oppressive about keeping the traditional definition of the word "marriage"?

bravian: SkinnyHead: Doesn't NJ recognize civil unions? Why can't they be happy with civil unions and quit trying to change the traditional definition of the word marriage? What's so oppressive about keeping the traditional definition of the word "marriage"?

Because separate but equal has been shown to be such a winning strategy.

/a NJ Court has already ruled that Civil Unions has not worked
//and in the UK - they are moving to full marriage equality because they discovered the same thing

It is not a question of separate but equal. It's using different words for different things. Using different words for different things does not oppress anyone.

SkinnyHead: Why can't they be happy with civil unions

Separate, but equal. Amirite?