"The ombudsman will be charged with increasing awareness of the law regarding civil unions, will provide a clear point of contact for those who have questions or concerns and will be required to report any evidence of the law being violated. In this way, we can ensure equal treatment under the law," Christie said in a statement.

Yet he doesn't want equality under the law, that's why he's against gays having marriage.

Technically speaking, an executive decision is not a change in the law and change in executives can undo the previous decision.  However, the wind is blowing in the direction of equality so this is good news.  The law, however is another and amazing thing.  To justify racial marriage laws in 1940's, a judge actually said in his ruling that "almighty God placed the races on different continents for a reason."    So…..despite appearances that is cultivated by judges, legilslatures and lawyers, the law is often not neutral.  But "Cheers" for any progress!

but how to convedrse with muslim people. we usually don't learn arabic as our second language and they are lazy to learn english.

We have to remember, that every state that has had a public vote on gay rights have always voted for hate.

Since politics is the art of the possible, it's interesting to imagine all the barriers and red tape that lawmakers are slow to traverse, when they could do so much more in an expeditious manner if they so desired. This must be due in some degree to the bias that lawmakers may have against other types of relationships. They may even believe that those types of relationships are wrong ― and unworthy of their fervent support.

If only they could open their hearts and their minds to the wonderful variety of relationships available to people, and do their best to make laws that instead of holding people back, set them free.

I know for sure under Canadian law (particularly the portion better known as "Christopher's Law"), such an act would be considered a sex crime, which in most cases, carries a minimum of a 2-year sentence (per count), as well as having to register annually with the sex offender's registry.

@raphjd:

Ironically, these muslims are being tried under a law that was originally created to protect muslims from hate after 9/11.

Now that is irony at its finest…. That's kinda funny actually.

A few people commented on Twitter at the time, they were amazed that anyone still watched porn on dvds.

It's astonishing that public money was wasted on investigating and prosecuting this. I would love to know the thought process of the individuals responsible for it going to trial, and why no one thought this would be a bad idea.

That's just sad on so many levels… WOW

Oh let's not forget about the obvious contradiction…

Ronney stated:
@leatherbear:

"At the same time, from the very beginning in 1994, I said to the gay community, I do not favor same-sex marriage. I oppose same-sex marriage and that has been my view,"

BUT WAIT… THERE'S MORE... He continues to state:

@leatherbear:

"If people are looking for someone who will discriminate against gays or will in any way try and suggest that people – that have different sexual orientation don't have full rights in this country, they won't find that in me."

Can someone please explain to me how someone can "not discriminate against gays in any way" and claim that they won't find anything in them that will suggest that they believe that people with a "different sexual orientation don't have full rights in this country" could be apposed to gay marriage? It stands to reason that that all unto itself is a contradiction, seeing as how equality rights INCLUDE marriage rights. For this reason alone, one could easily argue that by not supporting gay marriage, you're supporting the view that people with a "different sexual orientation" are to be treated differently just for the simple fact that in doing so, you are clearly stating that you support the inequality that society has slapped against gays by not supporting gay marriage.

Maybe it's just me, but I see that as a huge contradiction all unto itself. Can someone please explain to me how this is not just a case of saying one thing, yet clearly by action alone proving that you're against the very thing that you claim to be for? I ask this because I certainly don't get how this can be the case, when his actions of not supporting gay marriage suggest the opposite of what he is saying in that statement. I think this is just another "throw us under the bus" for votes situation. Unfortunately, at this day and age, we see it far too often.

Since its passage by the Senate, Nigeria has received strong criticisms and warnings from the British, Canadian and the United States of America governments, which have individually threatened to withdraw aids and other forms of assistance to Nigeria, if the law is allowed to exist.

Sadly, the US, UK and Canada still send Nigeria and all the other gay hating countries foreign aid.  That means we are being taxes to support people that hate us.

The precedent is already set though, with herpes back in the 80s.  You have to disclose, even if not asked.  So I don't see how HIV would be under different rules.

Even if there wasn't the precedent, people that are infected with a disease should always tell their partner before hand and use safer sex.