Local time where you're at. ("Where you're at"?)

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, the Noo Joisey Sorprano Court must really&#160 love the Ninth Circus.&#160 For they keep rendering shitty, fuckheaded decisions like this one.

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.

We’ll refrain from pointing out, once again,&#160 how so-called “same sex couples” already have the same exact rights as heterosexual couples do.&#160 Neither person in a “heterosexual couple” can marry someone of the same gender, either.&#160 Same rights that every limp-wristed heterophobe has in conjunction to every heterosexual.

(Oops, guess I did, in fact, point that out, didn’t I?&#160 Ah, well, sue me. (snicker))

In a ruling that fell short of what either side wanted or most feared,

Y’know, I’m well aware of the old axiom that the best judicial decisions are those where neither side’s happy with what they got – but IYAM, that’s pure bullshit.&#160 Despite the arrogant-assed, nose-in-the-air opinions these tin-horned blackrobes may have about themselves, their function remains to interpret the laws as they are written – not&#160 order the Legislature to create new ones.

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.

This would be a primo time for that famed Noo Joisey “What, yoo tawkin’ t’ me???”&#160 attitude to emerge on the part of the Noo Joisey Hoffa Legislature&#153.&#160 You’d think that if anyone&#160 resented being told what to do, it’s a Noo Joisey-ite.&#160 And who better to set the example than their assemblymen?

Probably won’t happen, though.&#160 “Live by the court, die by the court”, so goes the paraphrase.

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.

And that ruling was blatantly unconstitutional, too.&#160 But why let trivial matters like the supreme law of the land and the separation of powers stand in the way of what the heterophobes want…right?

“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.

“We can’t find a fundamental right for limp-wriththththth…uh, to marry – thhho we’re going to create one.&#160 And we’re going to make the Legithlathure write it!!!&#160 It’th thooooooo charming!”

And the hell of this decision is…it looks as if it’s the conservative one.

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

Ropes, trees, Noo Joisey Soprano Court.&#160 Some assembly required.

Time for me to hit the range…

Notice: compact(): Undefined variable: limits in /home/sysop284/domains/spatulacitybbs.net/public_html/wp-includes/class-wp-comment-query.php on line 853

Notice: compact(): Undefined variable: groupby in /home/sysop284/domains/spatulacitybbs.net/public_html/wp-includes/class-wp-comment-query.php on line 853

Notice: compact(): Undefined variable: limits in /home/sysop284/domains/spatulacitybbs.net/public_html/wp-includes/class-wp-comment-query.php on line 853

Notice: compact(): Undefined variable: groupby in /home/sysop284/domains/spatulacitybbs.net/public_html/wp-includes/class-wp-comment-query.php on line 853

Notice: Theme without comments.php is deprecated since version 3.0.0 with no alternative available. Please include a comments.php template in your theme. in /home/sysop284/domains/spatulacitybbs.net/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 4027

8 responses to “Noo Joisey Supreme Soprano Court strikes again”

1. Phaedrus says:

   October 27, 2006 at 7:48 am

   If two guys want to get married, what business is it of yours? Seriously, I’ve never understood the right wing hostility to gay marriage.

2. Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant says:

   October 27, 2006 at 2:44 pm

   If two guys want to get married, what business is it of yours?

   Heterophobes who pull this bullshit cheapen the institution of marriage, properly defined as between one man and one woman.&#160 They, and their actions are offensive to us, and we have the First Amendment right to express that offense.&#160 That’s&#160 what business it is of ours.

   Got any more dumb-assed questions?

   Seriously, I’ve never understood the right wing hostility to gay marriage.

   Nor would I expect you to, Phae.&#160 It makes too much sense, after all.

3. Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant says:

   October 27, 2006 at 2:44 pm

   If two guys want to get married, what business is it of yours?

   Heterophobes who pull this bullshit cheapen the institution of marriage, properly defined as between one man and one woman.&#160 They, and their actions are offensive to us, and we have the First Amendment right to express that offense.&#160 That’s&#160 what business it is of ours.

   Got any more dumb-assed questions?

   Seriously, I’ve never understood the right wing hostility to gay marriage.

   Nor would I expect you to, Phae.&#160 It makes too much sense, after all.

4. Phaedrus says:

   October 28, 2006 at 2:39 pm

   Well, according to the figures at this site, it seems we straights are doing a fine job of cheapening the institution of marriage ourselves.

   Also, speaking of the ‘proper’ definition of marriage, there was a time when marriage between black men and white women was expressely forbidden by law. The definition of marriage has changed before and there’s no reason why it can’t change again.

   Bottom line: If gays want to marry, why get in the way? Who are they hurting?

   P.S. – What’s a ‘Heterophobe’?

5. Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant says:

   October 29, 2006 at 5:09 pm

   Well, according to the figures at this site, it seems we straights are doing a fine job of cheapening the institution of marriage ourselves.

   And I’m supposed to give two shits about statistics quoted by a magazine that celebrates something as ugly as divorce…why again?

   Also, speaking of the ‘proper’ definition of marriage, there was a time when marriage between black men and white women was expressely forbidden by law.

   Well, then, why don’t we just define it as between three adults?&#160 Or two adults and a dog? Or four adults, a child and a horse? Or a goat and a horse?

   Or would you just like to admit that you’ve just compared apples to oranges, and that your head is firmly ensconsed up your ass on this one?

   The definition of marriage has changed before and there’s no reason why it can’t change again.

   I can think of about 60,000,011 good ones.&#160 Specifically, the sixty million who voted Republican in ’04, and the 11 states where it was put on the ballot and kicked ass.

   And a good many of us have additional reasons.&#160 Reasons named Springfield, Smith, Wesson, Glock and Taurus, for starters.

   Bottom line: If gays want to marry, why get in the way? Who are they hurting?

   Because we&#160 won’t have our institution cheapened by the likes of the limp-wrists and their sycophants.

   P.S. – What’s a ‘Heterophobe’?

   Figure it out.

6. Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant says:

   October 29, 2006 at 5:09 pm

   Well, according to the figures at this site, it seems we straights are doing a fine job of cheapening the institution of marriage ourselves.

   And I’m supposed to give two shits about statistics quoted by a magazine that celebrates something as ugly as divorce…why again?

   Also, speaking of the ‘proper’ definition of marriage, there was a time when marriage between black men and white women was expressely forbidden by law.

   Well, then, why don’t we just define it as between three adults?&#160 Or two adults and a dog? Or four adults, a child and a horse? Or a goat and a horse?

   Or would you just like to admit that you’ve just compared apples to oranges, and that your head is firmly ensconsed up your ass on this one?

   The definition of marriage has changed before and there’s no reason why it can’t change again.

   I can think of about 60,000,011 good ones.&#160 Specifically, the sixty million who voted Republican in ’04, and the 11 states where it was put on the ballot and kicked ass.

   And a good many of us have additional reasons.&#160 Reasons named Springfield, Smith, Wesson, Glock and Taurus, for starters.

   Bottom line: If gays want to marry, why get in the way? Who are they hurting?

   Because we&#160 won’t have our institution cheapened by the likes of the limp-wrists and their sycophants.

   P.S. – What’s a ‘Heterophobe’?

   Figure it out.

7. Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur says:

   October 30, 2006 at 2:37 pm

   Blacks and whites marrying? Please, give me a difficult distinction to make. People cannot change their skin color (Michael Jackson aside), but Neal and Bob’s desire to shack up legally is prevented by their LIFESTYLE choice, not by a condition they have no control over. And just like I don’t want to see adults getting the right to marry children or pets, becuase it is what they want and represents the LIFESTYLE they have chosen, I do not want to see the state sanction gay marriage.

   You might want give some thought to the analogy you use next time.

8. Phaedrus says:

   November 1, 2006 at 12:31 pm

   And I’m supposed to give two shits about statistics quoted by a magazine that celebrates something as ugly as divorce…why again?

   Because they’re pertinent to our discussion and, most of all, accurate. You don’t get to summarily dismiss cites just because they make you uncomfortable.

   Well, then, why don’t we just define it as between three adults? Or two adults and a dog? Or four adults, a child and a horse? Or a goat and a horse?

   So…lemme get this straight. You’re saying that if we change the legal definition of marriage to include loving, committed, same sex couples seeking to legitimise their relationships in the eyes of the law, there would be no bulwark against redefinitions encompassing child abuse and bestiality? Do you have any idea how fucking insane that sounds?

   I can think of about 60,000,011 good ones. Specifically, the sixty million who voted Republican in ’04, and the 11 states where it was put on the ballot and kicked ass.

   There are two possibilities here. Either you think gay marriage was the swing issue for every Republican voter, including the Log Cabin Republicans, or you favour some dictatorial tyranny of the majority where the weak are forever at the mercy of the masses. One of these is absurd, the other is sickening. Which is it?

   Because we won’t have our institution cheapened by the likes of the limp-wrists and their sycophants.

   Sounds like simple bigotry to me.

   Blackiswhite wrote:

   Blacks and whites marrying? Please, give me a difficult distinction to make. People cannot change their skin color (Michael Jackson aside), but Neal and Bob’s desire to shack up legally is prevented by their LIFESTYLE choice, not by a condition they have no control over. And just like I don’t want to see adults getting the right to marry children or pets, becuase it is what they want and represents the LIFESTYLE they have chosen, I do not want to see the state sanction gay marriage.

   Okay, three questions:

   1)Do you really think gay people choose their sexuality?

   2)Is heterosexuality your lifestyle choice, or were you just born that way?

   3)Do you actually know ANY gay people on first name terms?