"To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens comment about Falwell, if you gave
O'Reilly an enema, he could broadcast his show from a matchbox."
"Maybe Bill O is not as malevolent and nasty as I assumed. Perhaps he's
JUST TOTALLY STUPID. He made no argument in this piece that could not
be applied to a straight couple. I can't believe that he could say the
things that he did, thinking that it is even the flimsiest grounds for
disapproving of this legislation. I guess we should actually pity Bill
for his obvious lack of rhetorical skills"
There's a whole lot more commentary about the B.O.'s on gay immigration over at Towelroad
"There are no immigration
benefits available to [gays] based on their relationship. With that said, there's certainly nothing that says a US citizen cannot move to another
country," - Chris Bentley, spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security's Citizen and Immigration Services, January 2004.
Pick your spouse or your country, guys. This is America.
Gay couples have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples under the New Jersey state constitution, the state Supreme Court just ruled.
Holy Shit! I have to say I did not see that coming.
It's about phreak'n time. We've needed some sort of morale booster in the 6 steps forward 5 steps back roller coaster of the last several years. I realize that this decision alone has little immediate effect on the national marriage debate––and it's timing may well prove to be the tiny spur that pushes hesitant Christianists back to the polling booths this coming election. I get the feeling that giddy GOP strategists are squealing and leaping around their offices in glee about now.
I wonder how the good people of New Jersey are receiving the news. I imagine they're experiencing a little gay-saustion. After McGreevy, the prospect of their Garden State becoming the destination of choice for same-sex couples looking to get hitched is not a welcome one for many, regardless of sexual or political orientation.
Unlike Massachusetts, where preexisting laws stipulate that out-of-state couples can't marry in Massachusetts if their unions wouldn't be recognized in their home state, the New Jersey decision means couples can get married and take the legal fight back home. This opens up numerous battlegrounds, and that means some much needed momentum for advocates.
However, the New Jersey decision does not legalize marriage. It simply rules that the current arrangements provided by the state for gay citizens who wish to marry are substandard and unconstitutional. The courts gave state lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include gay couples or create new civil unions.
Personally, I've always felt that 'Domestic Partners' is the rusty spigot we're told to drink from 'round back of the court house. However, if Civil Unions means marriage in everything but name--if the word 'marriage' is the concession we have to make--then it's a concession I'll make for now. As Andrew Sullivan says
I think this is a perfectly sane compromise. It's what the Brits have done. Leave the m-word to the churches; but let the state grant equal protection under the law. The Christianists can no longer claim that we are redefining civil marriage in New Jersey. We're just being fair to gay couples who, as citizens, have every right to be treated equally under the law.