Guest not in my town Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 I just read the observer. al santos favors gay marriage but won't perform one until the law is changed which he predicts will happen in 2-3 years. does my tax money support this? the mayor needs to know marriage is between a man and a woman. period. end of discussion. this man is so out of touch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 The Mayor will probably be the first to line up for a marriage license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest 99 Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 I just read the observer. al santos favors gay marriage but won't perform one until the law is changed which he predicts will happen in 2-3 years. does my tax money support this? the mayor needs to know marriage is between a man and a woman. period. end of discussion. this man is so out of touch. Would you please post the statement from the Observer that says Big Al favors gay marriage. Just another lame attempt to discredit someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 i never said the Observer said it. i said i read the article and i walked away from it believing the mayor favors same sex marriage. that's my take. but don't take my word for it. read the entire article yourself before blindly defending the guy. which councilwoman are you anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 I just read the observer. al santos favors gay marriage but won't perform one until the law is changed which he predicts will happen in 2-3 years. does my tax money support this? the mayor needs to know marriage is between a man and a woman. period. end of discussion. this man is so out of touch. Where have you been? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KearnyNJ Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 marriage is between two people who love eachother, end of discussion. you are so out of touch and out of place. if you want to hate gays, then please go to a place where your kind is accepted. like the south. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StudiesandObservations Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 marriage is between two people who love eachother, end of discussion. you are so out of touch and out of place. if you want to hate gays, then please go to a place where your kind is accepted. like the south. Interesting...you take one poster to task for commenting on something you consider discriminatory, and then YOU in turn, Act in precisely the Same manner, by Labeling an entire section of the country. Pot, Meet Kettle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Reader Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 Here is the quote from the Observer that leads me to conclude like the other poster that Al Santos supports gay marriages: But Santos, who said he performs more than 100 civil wedding ceremonies each year, said he'd consider marrying a same sex couple if two conditions existed: terminal illness or active military combat. 'I would be sympathetic to that couple ... and that is when I would consider it.' Santos said the law might recognize a 'a compelling cercumstance of necessity' as a defense to violating a law that prohibits same sex marriage. That sounds like he supports it. So Mayor do you support gay marriages or don't you? We know that you read this board so why not give us an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KearnyNJ Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 Does it matter if he does support gay marriage? What's the big deal if he supports something that is logically correct anyway? What's your problem with two gay people getting the same benefits you and your husband or wife get out of being married? Also, you should highly consider leaving this state, I think it's a little too liberal for you. I mean, nobody is even going to listen to what you have to say, except a small worthless percentage. You should really consider moving down South, you gay-hating crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest 99 Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 Could you please explain why it is logically correct? I'm just wondering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest potter Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 I would suggest if you have a problem with an article in the observer, you post in that forum. I know did. The Observer Forumhttp://theobserver.com/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/index.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KearnyNJ Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 Could you please explain why it is logically correct? I'm just wondering. if two people love eachother. why shouldn't they be married and get the benifits that married couples get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FlagMann_Guest Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 Could you please explain why it is logically correct? I'm just wondering. if two people love eachother. why shouldn't they be married and get the benifits that married couples get? Well, You said it!!!! Anything for free (benitfits) You Rice&Bean, Eating Mongrel. You, and "all" you Mutts!!! Are Here!! for the free hand out's!!! (Illegal) Crawl back under the fence!! you wiggled under!!! I bet "you" even worship Santeria!! Here comes Newark, Trash, trash, trash, and more trash. FlagMann. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StudiesandObservation Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 Could you please explain why it is logically correct? I'm just wondering. if two people love eachother. why shouldn't they be married and get the benifits that married couples get? Because it isnt permitted, at this time under NJ Law. Frankly I think that the San Francisco Mayor who started this whole thing whould be charged criminally for Misconduct. NOT because he married same-sex couples, but because he Violated the State Constitution knowingly and willingly, and used his office to do so. There's no reason that Gay couples shouldnt have Civil Union Status, with the rights and protections for Medical, Inheritance, and other issues. The problem is that once again, a minority isnt happy unless they can force their view on everyone else. Why is the term "Marriage" so divisive?? It has become a question of semantics, and an argument just for the sake of an argument. Do Gays have rights? Absolutely, but do they have the right to violate anyone elses in the furtherance of those rights?? That is where i have a problem. In times past, it was said that your right to Free Speach ended at the tip of my nose. We have gotten away from that to the point where any differing opinion is automatically called "Hate Speach", wether or not it actually descends into what a reasonable person would consider that to be. UNLESS of course you are a White Male, whereupon ANY opinion you have is going to be offensive to someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest All for Gay Rights Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 Harrisons Mayor McDonough has not only given out a marriage license to a gay couple, but even performed the cerimony himself. Councilman %% married his long time lover just last week. This is the United States of America, where freedom lives. I am 100% behind the Harrison Mayor and wonder why our Mayor doesn't have the BA**S to perform same sex marriages? KOTW Note: This post was edited where %% appears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest 99 Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 Studies and Observation is correct. Every elected and appointed official in New Jersey takes a sworn oath to, in part, "uphold the constitutions of the United States and of this state". Any violation, which at this time includes marrying a gay couple, could, and should lead to removal from office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pube Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 Harrisons Mayor McDonough has not only given out a marriage license to a gay couple, but even performed the cerimony himself. Councilman JD married his long time lover just last week. This is the United States of America, where freedom lives. I am 100% behind the Harrison Mayor and wonder why our Mayor doesn't have the BA**S to perform same sex marriages? there's no reason to insult our mayor for not engaging in something that millions of people find morally wrong. just because you and half the country think gays deserve a priveledge such as this doesn't mean anyone else has to agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StudiesandObservations Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 This is the United States of America, where freedom lives. I am 100% behind the Harrison Mayor and wonder why our Mayor doesn't have the BA**S to perform same sex marriages?KOTW Note: This post was edited where %% appears. Even though i have issues with some of the Mayor's policies, Santos made it VERY clear why he chose not to do so, it has Nothing to do with the presence or lack thereof of testicles, it DOES however have to do with the Law. Although most people tend to forget it, Santos is still a member of the NJ bar, and one assumes, eventually will again practice law as a profession. By performing a marriage, and breaking the law, he opens himself up to Censure for an ethical violation of even Legal proceedings, and Disbarrment, and the loss of the license for him to practice the profession that he has chosen for himself. Mayor McDonough in Harrison has no such strictures against him. The US Supreme Court will rule on this im sure in the next year, why not wait until the Constitutionality is determined once and for all??? NJ already has Domestic Partner laws and statutes inplace that protect members of Same-sex relationships, one of the few states that do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senshi Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 I don't see a problem with gay marriges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pube Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 The US Supreme Court will rule on this im sure in the next year, why not wait until the Constitutionality is determined once and for all??? NJ already has Domestic Partner laws and statutes inplace that protect members of Same-sex relationships, one of the few states that do. exactly. there's no use complaining now when nothing can be done. when that entire situation is settled, things will be fine. if they're not, THEN you can criticize the mayor's testicular fortitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyDuke.net Posted March 28, 2004 Report Share Posted March 28, 2004 Could you please explain why it is logically correct? I'm just wondering. if two people love eachother. why shouldn't they be married and get the benifits that married couples get? i love my dog, i want to marry him. awwwwwwwwwwww/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gettin' Older Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 Because it isnt permitted, at this time under NJ Law. Frankly I think that the San Francisco Mayor who started this whole thing whould be charged criminally for Misconduct. NOT because he married same-sex couples, but because he Violated the State Constitution knowingly and willingly, and used his office to do so. There's no reason that Gay couples shouldnt have Civil Union Status, with the rights and protections for Medical, Inheritance, and other issues. The problem is that once again, a minority isnt happy unless they can force their view on everyone else. Why is the term "Marriage" so divisive?? It has become a question of semantics, and an argument just for the sake of an argument. Do Gays have rights? Absolutely, but do they have the right to violate anyone elses in the furtherance of those rights?? That is where i have a problem. In times past, it was said that your right to Free Speach ended at the tip of my nose. We have gotten away from that to the point where any differing opinion is automatically called "Hate Speach", wether or not it actually descends into what a reasonable person would consider that to be. UNLESS of course you are a White Male, whereupon ANY opinion you have is going to be offensive to someone. S and O, Once again, you eloquently mix sense and nonsense. You stipulate that gays have the right to civil unions, and say the word "marriage" is just semantics. Is sitting on the back of the bus just semantics? After all, you go to all the same places as the people on the front of the bus, and you pay no extra fare. Do the people on the back of the bus violate your rights when they simply want to choose their own seat? No. If the law needs to be rewritten, so be it, but neither you nor anyone else has the right to tell others that they should just sit at the back of the bus and shut up about it. Of course you have the right to your opinion, but regarding this issue, you should re-examine who is forcing their view on whom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest 1 Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 Hypothetical: I am female, and live with a female friend for a long time;I love her very much and she loves me' the relationship is not sexual since we are both straight; she has medical benefits on her job and I do not. Why am I not entitled to be covered by her benefit package? We live together in a loving relationship. Does the act of sex make me eligible? Have fun guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 Hypothetical: I am female, and live with a female friend for a long time;I love her very much and she loves me' the relationship is not sexual since we are both straight; she has medical benefits on her job and I do not. Why am I not entitled to be covered by her benefit package? We live together in a loving relationship. Does the act of sex make me eligible? Have fun guys! Well, I'm male and married to a female, we don't have sex (anymore) but she has great benefits. Sounds the same to me, except the genders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gettin' Older Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 Hypothetical: I am female, and live with a female friend for a long time;I love her very much and she loves me' the relationship is not sexual since we are both straight; she has medical benefits on her job and I do not. Why am I not entitled to be covered by her benefit package? We live together in a loving relationship. Does the act of sex make me eligible? Have fun guys! Most employers who offer Domestic Partner Benefits require you to sign a declaration of Domestic Parnership, and provide some proof, such as cohabitation, sharing of finances, etc. I believe that whether or not you have sex is irrelevent. (This does leave the door open to abuse) None of this however, would give you any legal rights outside the employee benefits. You'd have no right to visit your sick "loved one" in the hospital, nor inherit any of her belongings unless specifically willed to you. You would have no legal status to a child born to her, nor she to yours, unless adopted. Etc, Etc, Etc. Are you getting the idea now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.