If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Crooks & Liars)   Chris Christie vetoed civil rights. Now listen to the Newark mayor raise holy hell about putting the rights of minorities up for popular vote   (crooksandliars.com) divider line 312
    More: Cool, Chris Christie, Martin O'Malley, state senate, two-thirds majority, marriage certificate, Jon Corzine, civil rights, delegated voting  
•       •       •

6426 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Feb 2012 at 3:37 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



312 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-18 05:06:22 PM

SkinnyHead: 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"?


"Separate but equal" does not work, and it's an absurdity to try to make it work. If it's equal, then just get rid of the separation.

You can not demonstrate any harm done to marriage in any country or state that has legalized same-sex marriage. There is no rational basis for maintaining that there will be any damage or interference caused to marriage by expanding it to cover same-sex unions.

Fear of change is not enough reason to deny people what they want.

You hold the tradition of marriage so highly, and yet you can't understand why gay people want to get married and not "civil unioned"? People value marriage as a major life event and see it as a rite of passage. Just because they don't incorporate heterosexuality into their ideal like most people that doesn't make it any less meaningful to them.
 
2012-02-18 05:06:36 PM

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


I've always thought Cory Booker was one of the good guys. Not infallable by any stretch of the imagination, but one of the very few who get into politics for the right reasons.
 
2012-02-18 05:09:22 PM

SkinnyHead: 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.


And why do you care? That's one question you people never seem to want to answer.
 
2012-02-18 05:11:28 PM

Mugato: SkinnyHead: 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.

And why do you care? That's one question you people never seem to want to answer.


I know. When confronted with facts or questions seeking root cause, they run.
Because they know they are wrong.
 
2012-02-18 05:12:57 PM
He did not veto a "civil right". No one has the "right" to be married. The state issues you a marrige license based on certain criteria, like a drivers license. Thank you Christie!
 
2012-02-18 05:15:23 PM

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


You're totally wrong.
 
2012-02-18 05:17:08 PM

darkedgefan: He did not veto a "civil right". No one has the "right" to be married. The state issues you a marrige license based on certain criteria, like a drivers license. Thank you Christie!


So only certain groups like say, heterosexuals may obtain a marriage license?
I think you have "meeting a certain criteria" confused with DISCRIMINATION.

I guess when people could not vote unless they owned land was "certain criteria" it was wasn't a civil rights issue either.
 
2012-02-18 05:17:10 PM

darkedgefan: He did not veto a "civil right". No one has the "right" to be married. The state issues you a marrige license based on certain criteria, like a drivers license. Thank you Christie!


Cool. So Christie can veto interracial marriages as well, right? Sounds like a good idea!

/Heck, let's set some criteria on who can use which drinking fountains.

segregateddrinkingfountains.jpg
 
2012-02-18 05:17:15 PM

darkedgefan: He did not veto a "civil right". No one has the "right" to be married. The state issues you a marrige license based on certain criteria, like a drivers license. Thank you Christie!


The Supreme Court already ruled that marriage is a basic civil right. Take it up with them.
 
2012-02-18 05:17:48 PM

darkedgefan: He did not veto a "civil right". No one has the "right" to be married. The state issues you a marrige license based on certain criteria, like a drivers license. Thank you Christie!


Look at how stupid you are.
 
2012-02-18 05:18:30 PM

Mugato: SkinnyHead: 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.

And why do you care? That's one question you people never seem to want to answer.


Because someone might try to gay marry him.
 
2012-02-18 05:20:38 PM
So SKINNEYHEAD are you going to answer Mugato's question or did you go back and hide under your bridge?
 
2012-02-18 05:23:34 PM

Clowns are a Ten: KWess: jcooli09: KWess: Descartes: Civil Rights? I'm pretty sure it was about gay marriage... (checks article). Yep, gay marriage.

Checks calendar...yep, it's 2012.

Sorry M. Descartes, you need to catch up now.

In case that was too subtle, he's saying that gay marriage is a civil rights issue.

Actually, he's saying the exact opposite of that. Try again. I'm the one who (amongst many others) who is saying that it's a matter of rights...not to mention basic decency.

Uhm. How I read his comment, it sounded like jcooli09 was agreeing with you.



Well, why don't I just shut my big mouth?

/Seriously, sorry about that...one isn't used to polite agreement on the internet.
 
2012-02-18 05:24:06 PM

James F. Campbell: FlyingLizardOfDoom is a right-wing troll.


I'm glad someone bothered to read my profile.
 
2012-02-18 05:26:28 PM
I just wont to be clear. The idea of "traditional marriage" as put forth by SkinnyHead and other anti-equality folks is an absolute lie.

But what if it wasn't? What if throughout history there was a clear case to be made that marriage is by definition a joining of one man and one woman. And now that we are starting to realize that gays are actually people that deserve to be treated as well as any other people so there is a drive to change that definition to include same sex relationships. How does that harm anyone? Is it going to break up mixed sex marriages? What exactly is going to happen that you seem to be so afraid of? Or are you just worried that even more people simply be exposed to the idea that being gay is not somehow negatively different, wrong or abnormal and that this could actually influence culture to stop persecuting gays, to stop physically assaulting them for being gay, to stop bullying them to suicide while they're still figuring out who they even are? Is that what you want to stop?
 
2012-02-18 05:29:11 PM

henryhill: "No minority should have their civil rights subject to the sentiments, the passions of the majority."

This should be printed on money!


And vice versa.
 
2012-02-18 05:30:13 PM

Mentat: Mugato: SkinnyHead: 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.

And why do you care? That's one question you people never seem to want to answer.

Because someone might try to gay marry him.


Well, he is a catch. I heard he just made partner at his GED in Law firm.
 
2012-02-18 05:30:16 PM
Premise 1: "Traditional" means "way old"

Premise 2: India is way older than 'Merica

Premise 3: In India people marry snakes and goats

Conclusion: "Traditional Marriage" means "marrying snakes and goats"
 
2012-02-18 05:33:18 PM

Rambino: Premise 1: "Traditional" means "way old"

Premise 2: India is way older than 'Merica

Premise 3: In India people marry snakes and goats

Conclusion: "Traditional Marriage" means "marrying snakes and goats"


I like your logic.

Try this one:

1) Poop is brown
2) Brown is a College
ergo
3) College is crap.
 
2012-02-18 05:36:28 PM

SkinnyHead: 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.


It's not just different words. It's different legal protections afforded by the two 'words'. Civil unions are a bone thrown at us when everyone else is eating steak.

You would think with that GED you'd understand that...
 
2012-02-18 05:37:09 PM

Mugato: SkinnyHead: 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.

And why do you care? That's one question you people never seem to want to answer.


I care about democracy. If we're going to change the traditional definition of marriage, I think that's something that the voters should decide, like they did in California.
 
2012-02-18 05:38:09 PM
When the Mayor of Newark puts up a similar shiatstorm about the right of free citizens to defend themselves and possess the modern tools to effectively do so, even if it is unpopular within the community, I'll give a damn.

Mr. Mayor only cares and bothers to blow some hot air when it's a minority right being trampled that he personally sympathizes with... or, more likely, which the voting bloc he depends on for re-election sympathizes with.

Christie is an asshole.

So is Booker.

Fark them both with a rusty chainsaw coated in Tabasco sauce and angry spiders.
 
2012-02-18 05:40:05 PM

SkinnyHead: Mugato: SkinnyHead: 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.

And why do you care? That's one question you people never seem to want to answer.

I care about democracy. If we're going to change the traditional definition of marriage, I think that's something that the voters should decide, like they did in California.


If we left everything up to popular vote, I still might not be able to marry a woman outside of my race in certain states.

Now, log in as el chip or STFU.
 
2012-02-18 05:43:28 PM

SkinnyHead: Mugato: SkinnyHead: 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.

And why do you care? That's one question you people never seem to want to answer.

I care about democracy. If we're going to change the traditional definition of marriage, I think that's something that the voters should decide, like they did in California.


We're not a democracy. Apart from everything else, the vote in California was heavily influenced from out of state by a group whose belief system incorporates polygamy as they defended 'traditional' marriage of one man one woman... Figure that one out.
 
2012-02-18 05:44:21 PM

SkinnyHead: care about democracy. If we're going to change the traditional definition of marriage, I think that's something that the voters should decide, like they did in California.


Firstly, this is a Democratic Republic. Secondly history teaches us the it's a bad idea to put peoples rights up for popular vote.
Lastly, if the tables were turned I seriously doubt you would be saying that.

What California did was wrong and the courts so stated.
 
2012-02-18 05:45:21 PM
The mayor is right. Those who oppose gay marriage will be seen as the SAME as those who opposed school integration. They are on the wrong side of history. For those of you who still support a Gay marriage ban, your ancestors will be ashamed to have you in the family tree.
 
2012-02-18 05:46:43 PM

smeegle: SkinnyHead: care about democracy. If we're going to change the traditional definition of marriage, I think that's something that the voters should decide, like they did in California.

Firstly, this is a Democratic Republic. Secondly history teaches us the it's a bad idea to put peoples rights up for popular vote.
Lastly, if the tables were turned I seriously doubt you would be saying that.

What California did was wrong and the courts so stated.


All California tried to do with Prop 8 is overturn a court decision a majority of the voting public did not support. The courts should always be subject to limitations by the people, otherwise we have a judiciary subject to no one.
 
2012-02-18 05:46:46 PM
Why do Americans institutionalize hate?!

You've done it with Natives, Blacks, Irish, Asians, and now Gays. Well fark you America!
 
2012-02-18 05:49:22 PM
I say we get together as a 'democracy' (I know we're not, but shhhh, just go with me) and vote to outlaw christian marriages, marriages of people separated by more than two years of age and people of the same eye color. See how arbitrary distinctions would change the right wings view point?

For those too F*cling dense to understand, that was all sarcasm to prove a point illustrating how infuriating it is that I can't marry my partner because it's 'icky'.
 
2012-02-18 05:49:47 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: All California tried to do with Prop 8 is overturn a court decision a majority of the voting public did not support. The courts should always be subject to limitations by the people, otherwise we have a judiciary subject to no one.


Three branches of government are there for a reason but I think you know that.
How would you like your rights to be subject to the limitations of the people?
You do understand the concept of Tyranny of the Majority don't you?
This issue will end up in SCOTUS and then it will become the law of the land.
 
2012-02-18 05:51:29 PM

truthseeker2083: I say we get together as a 'democracy' (I know we're not, but shhhh, just go with me) and vote to outlaw christian marriages, marriages of people separated by more than two years of age and people of the same eye color. See how arbitrary distinctions would change the right wings view point?

For those too F*cling dense to understand, that was all sarcasm to prove a point illustrating how infuriating it is that I can't marry my partner because it's 'icky'.


Personally, I say allowing people with red hair to marry non-gingers should be restricted by law as it would dilute the gene pool of red headed hotties and force us to fap to bottle gingers on foobies.com
 
2012-02-18 05:53:09 PM

truthseeker2083: I say we get together as a 'democracy' (I know we're not, but shhhh, just go with me) and vote to outlaw christian marriages, marriages of people separated by more than two years of age and people of the same eye color. See how arbitrary distinctions would change the right wings view point?

For those too F*cling dense to understand, that was all sarcasm to prove a point illustrating how infuriating it is that I can't marry my partner because it's 'icky'.


It's not that I think it's "icky" it's a government issue. Civil Unions should be the legal quasi contract that everyone is offered, and let marriage be a religious thing.
 
2012-02-18 05:53:49 PM

smeegle: FlyingLizardOfDoom: All California tried to do with Prop 8 is overturn a court decision a majority of the voting public did not support. The courts should always be subject to limitations by the people, otherwise we have a judiciary subject to no one.

Three branches of government are there for a reason but I think you know that.
How would you like your rights to be subject to the limitations of the people?
You do understand the concept of Tyranny of the Majority don't you?
This issue will end up in SCOTUS and then it will become the law of the land.


Being part of the majority most of the time, i have no problem with it...

/Right wing Troll
//check my profile if you don't believe me.
 
2012-02-18 05:54:20 PM
SkinnyHead: The traditional definition of marriage does not oppress anyone.

THAT is the single most ignorant statement in this entire thread, and there is a heckuva lot of ignorance on display here.
 
2012-02-18 05:54:56 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: heck my profile if you don't believe me.


I believe you. Your oppressive nature is quite evident.
 
2012-02-18 05:54:58 PM

pippi longstocking: Why do Americans institutionalize hate?!

You've done it with Natives, Blacks, Irish, Asians, and now Gays. Well fark you America!


To be fair, we're getting better. Not to mention that some people in all of those groups (save homosexuals) have at one time institutionalized hate against other groups of people. Of course, this doesn't absolve America of its many sins and obligations but I think it is clear that we are generally moving in the right direction, if slowly. There are many among us standing in the way, sad as that is.
 
2012-02-18 05:56:57 PM

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.


All of human civilization. Ladies and gentlemen, noted legal historian FlyingLizardOfDoom.
 
2012-02-18 05:57:09 PM

Hillbilly Jim: and let marriage be a religious thing.


Then it would be called Holy Matrimony.
 
2012-02-18 05:58:05 PM

TheOmni: I just wont to be clear. The idea of "traditional marriage" as put forth by SkinnyHead and other anti-equality folks is an absolute lie.

But what if it wasn't? What if throughout history there was a clear case to be made that marriage is by definition a joining of one man and one woman. And now that we are starting to realize that gays are actually people that deserve to be treated as well as any other people so there is a drive to change that definition to include same sex relationships. How does that harm anyone? Is it going to break up mixed sex marriages? What exactly is going to happen that you seem to be so afraid of? Or are you just worried that even more people simply be exposed to the idea that being gay is not somehow negatively different, wrong or abnormal and that this could actually influence culture to stop persecuting gays, to stop physically assaulting them for being gay, to stop bullying them to suicide while they're still figuring out who they even are? Is that what you want to stop?


So getting to the crux of the matter, this debate is really about influencing culture, isn't it? It's about trying to force the culture to accept something. When people are forced to accept something, how do you know that they really accept it?
 
2012-02-18 05:58:19 PM
cory booker is an incredible guy. there is a documentary called Street Fight when he ran for mayor for the first time and lost. he was a no name at that point in his life, so it's interesting to watch, seeing as how he has become a national figure.
 
2012-02-18 06:00:12 PM

SkinnyHead: Will that put an end to the argument that voters have no business deciding the issue?


Of course not. Even after the Supreme Court ruled that black people could be property, right-minded people continued to argue that slavery is abhorrent to a civil society.
 
2012-02-18 06:00:13 PM

clambam: Sorry, this was a no brainer for Christie. Like a lot of Americans (me for instance), he probably doesn't care strongly one way or another about this issue, but if he didn't veto the bill he'd never hear the end of it from the repub base, and he does have national aspirations. This issue can't come back and bite him on the ass, he's not really expecting to win Democratic votes in any case, and he can quietly sign a bill later when the controversy has blown over if he wants and claim partial credit for the win.


If you do not feel strongly about homosexuality being a bad thing, then how can you see interfering in their happiness by the government anything but a despicable thing?

I can see gay marriage not being a major ranking issue in terms of the issue's importance relative to something like a war, sure. But to not be strongly and firmly on one side or the other makes you ignorant or a dick, to be honest.

There are a billion harmless things people do that make them happy. I am STRONGLY in favor of us not making those things illegal in order to give a minority, or majority, of the population the ability to force their religious beliefs on others.
 
2012-02-18 06:01:16 PM

Hillbilly Jim: truthseeker2083: I say we get together as a 'democracy' (I know we're not, but shhhh, just go with me) and vote to outlaw christian marriages, marriages of people separated by more than two years of age and people of the same eye color. See how arbitrary distinctions would change the right wings view point?

For those too F*cling dense to understand, that was all sarcasm to prove a point illustrating how infuriating it is that I can't marry my partner because it's 'icky'.

It's not that I think it's "icky" it's a government issue. Civil Unions should be the legal quasi contract that everyone is offered, and let marriage be a religious thing.


While I see what you are saying and tend to agree with it, throughout this country's history, marriage is what has been available, even to those of non religious backgrounds. Civil Unions are weaker than a state marriage, and the only way that would work is if they were bumped up to the protections afforded under current marriage terms. Hope that came out right. I've got a headache and am typing on my phone.
 
2012-02-18 06:04:02 PM

SkinnyHead: TheOmni: I just wont to be clear. The idea of "traditional marriage" as put forth by SkinnyHead and other anti-equality folks is an absolute lie.

But what if it wasn't? What if throughout history there was a clear case to be made that marriage is by definition a joining of one man and one woman. And now that we are starting to realize that gays are actually people that deserve to be treated as well as any other people so there is a drive to change that definition to include same sex relationships. How does that harm anyone? Is it going to break up mixed sex marriages? What exactly is going to happen that you seem to be so afraid of? Or are you just worried that even more people simply be exposed to the idea that being gay is not somehow negatively different, wrong or abnormal and that this could actually influence culture to stop persecuting gays, to stop physically assaulting them for being gay, to stop bullying them to suicide while they're still figuring out who they even are? Is that what you want to stop?

So getting to the crux of the matter, this debate is really about influencing culture, isn't it? It's about trying to force the culture to accept something. When people are forced to accept something, how do you know that they really accept it?


I personally don't care if you accept or approve. I just want people like you to stop interfering in my life. You don't know me, I don't know you. Your marriage has no impact on my life, what would mine have on yours?
 
2012-02-18 06:04:23 PM

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 a method to inject control into the lower class' lives. Having it be about love is a relatively new concept. antithetical to an institution that helps the church control their followers


FTFA
 
2012-02-18 06:05:45 PM
What is it that you don't get SKINNYHEAD, about the difference between peoples rights and regular issues that are routinely put before the people?
 
2012-02-18 06:07:37 PM

SkinnyHead: When people are forced to accept something, how do you know that they really accept it?


Who gives a crap if they -really- accept it?
 
2012-02-18 06:08:21 PM

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.


In "traditional" Christian marriage in the 19th century, a man could only marry a woman of the same racial caste. The woman could not own property. She did not own her body, either, as she was deemed to consent to sex at the will and pleasure of her husband. The court would not hear the testimony of a woman against her husband because marital relations were privileged and a woman was subsumed into one legal entity with her husband.

People got married for all sorts of reasons - financial or political alliances between powerful families; to prove that they weren't homosexuals; because a woman couldn't pursue employment in most fields and marriage ensured a secure lifestyle; in order to avoid social reproach when your rapist gets you pregnant; because it's simply what mom and dad expected of you; and occasionally for romantic love.

Sh*t's changed. "Traditional marriage" is a canard.
 
2012-02-18 06:09:55 PM

TheJoeY: SkinnyHead: When people are forced to accept something, how do you know that they really accept it?

Who gives a crap if they -really- accept it?


As a gay man, I don't care who accepts me. I don't approve of my father's religious nuttery, but I don't try to prevent his choice of lifestyle.
 
2012-02-18 06:10:05 PM

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.


i212.photobucket.com

Marriages were about sealing political alliances. How charmingly naive you are.
 
Displayed 50 of 312 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report