Mean people suck.

There's just nothing right about this. Why a "family" has to be made of a man and woman is nothing short of ludicris. Any two people can get married and never produce children. If two people build a home and care for one another, that's all that should matter. No one has ever shown me how two people who love one another impede the ability of any other "family" anywhere to conduct itself in a dignified, loving way. No one has ever shown me how those two people who love one another with respect and admiration ever brought down another family through their example. The world needs more couples -- couplings -- that love and respect one another more than we need to hear from 5 arrogant, conceited white guys who probably don't have the same kinds of relationships with their families as these two women do.

Okay, let's grow up here. It's got to suck to be dying of lung cancer, and to have your beloved partner allegedly "at risk of losing the house" -- i.e., not be able to pay the mortgage, but let's look at the other side. Hester knew exactly what her situation was. She knew her partner was not entitled to pension benefits. She knew that her partner couldn't afford to pay the mortgage. Why didn't she buy mortgage insurance? Why didn't she get a job elsewhere? Why didn't she bring this up years ago? There are hundreds of ways she could have avoided this situation, and she availed herself of none of them.

And now that she's in a corner, she's using the Oprah Winfrey-style tactic of raw emotion as a way to attempt to remedy her situation. The Freeholders who, by the way, are elected, unlike Hester, are basically being smeared as heartless middle-aged white guys (which in itself makes them bad, right?) who hate lesbians. This is beyond unfair.

You do not change laws because of one person's situation. You especially don't change them on a moment's notice. And most especially, you don't change them because of emotional manipulation. Once you allow that to happen, then it's Katie bar the door. Sorrow for what's happening to Hester can't be what determines decisions. Although she created her own problem, she's in a tough spot, and using sympathy as a political tool for what's basically a financial policy is disgusting.

This reminds me of Natelee Holloway's mom, the ever-charming Ms. Twitty, who's a regular on Dr. Phil these days, legal authority that he is. She was on last night, basically torturing a guy who was there as a representative of the Aruban government. She demanded "justice." She demanded "answers." She demanded "closure". She was a mother who was suffering, and her emotional situation was therefore more important than any other issue.

Aruba, folks, is a sovereign nation. So is the Netherlands, where the alleged perpetrators of this crime are now residing. As much as it must suck to be Ms. Twitty, the idea that one grieving mom can demand, and get, action out of the legal authorities in ANOTHER COUNTRY is beyond ridiculous. She wants the Aruban prosecutor to get the guys who allegedly murdered her daughter back from the Netherlands for more questioning. How the hell are they supposed to do that? Declare war? They're another country, and they can do what they want. My point: this is yet another case of women deciding that their personal emotional state is more important than any other issue. It's not.

Tyler, you wrote: "My point: this is yet another case of women deciding that their personal emotional state is more important than any other issue. It's not."

I was actually agreeing with you until you made this ludicrous, gross generalization. Good grief. That emotionally charged salvo is hypocritical of your otherwise well stated point and will likely obscure its intent. This is "Broadstreet" remember? Why throw out such an insult to the predominant reader base unless you want to appeal the emotion? For what it's worth, I am a woman and agree with your basic premise, but you lost my respect with that unnecessary closing remark.

Tyler,

She didn't "choose" her situation. It's not as though marriage was an option and she just didn't do it and now she's whining about it. As I have been following this story for a while my sense is that this story was picked up by others, not pushed into the limelight by her. She has no options other than publicity, she has no way to contest their denial of her beneifts being transferred to her partner. She did her civil servant job, worked for the city, paid her dues but because she has cancer she or her family will never see a dime of her pension because she can't get legally married to her spouse. Sorry if that sounds so unreasonable to you, but it isn't if you think about it for more than 2 seconds.

As for her local officials who think giving her pension is somehow a threat to other people's families, New Jersey *has* passed state legislation that expressly permits that partners get benefits such as pensions, health benefits, etc. The problem is that they added an "opt out" clause for local munipalities. If anything is ridiculous in this situation it is that.

Complaining that people without options-- people without official ways to address unfairness and inequitable treatment by their employers and/or the government-- are being manipulative when they complain means the end of social justice as we know it. If you follow that line of thinking Rosa Parks should have just given up her seat. That whiner. Why didn't she just accept her lower standing? She knew she had no rights, why didn't she just accept it?

Ms. Hester and Ms. Andree don't get some male friend to marry Ms. Hester, and then either give the dollar value of the pension fund to Ms. Andree, or, if the tax consequences of that are too onerous, just have him let Ms. Andree live in the house as a permanent guest, rent-free, while he lives wherever he lived before?

That not only gets Ms. Hester and Ms. Andree the financial justice they seek, it has the added benefit of showing the county board's "respect" for "sanctity of marriage" as the utter hypocritical sham that it is...

Just imagine them trying to claim in the inevitable court case that the marriage wasn't "real"... because, of course, of the obviously real relationship between Hester and Andree. For Hester and Andree, even if they lose, they win.

O, and "Tyler:" why in the world would you choose as a handle the name of a character with whom your apparent politics suggest you have nothing in common except being a jerk? And while we're troll-baiting here, isn't star65's $.02 overdue (no misogyny is complete w/o his take)?