New Jersey Recognizes Same Sex Unions

94lex83457 · 10-25-06, 03:07 PM

The New Jersey Supreme Court declared that homosexual couples deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/25/je....ap/index.html

Your thoughts...

bitkahuna · 10-25-06, 03:35 PM

Amen.

Live and let live. Homophobes afraid of gay couples need to get over it.

DASHOCKER · 10-25-06, 05:18 PM

What these folks do in their private lives is their business. If they want to get married, let them.

cpone · 10-25-06, 07:05 PM

Good.
Gay Civil Unions

Gay marriage

Gay Adoption

Idiots adopting

mmarshall · 10-25-06, 07:32 PM

Usually, when this happens, the voters in the state either pass a Constitutional Amendment addressing the question once and for all ( a judge cannot overrule or declare unconstitutional an actual amendment ) or the state legislature clarifies the legal code short of a constitutional amendment.

I know there is some support for gay marriage here and there ( certainly not as much as for civil unions, as cpone has shown ) but across the country as a whole, it is only a small minority. It is not a question of " homophobia " " gay-bashing " , " live and let live " , " sexual orientation ", or anything else along those lines. A clear majority of people coast-to-coast, with a few rare exceptions like Massachusetts, feel that gay marriage, even more so than civil unions, is improper and that marriage is a traditional legal and spiritual contract between one man and one woman. Constitutional Amendments banning gay marriage ( but sometimes accepting civil unions ) have had little difficulty passing in most places they have actually been put on the ballot....and there is little doubt that if Congress would pass one, it would be signed by the President and pass in the necessary 38 states to amend the U.S Constitution itself ( obviously wiping out the MA Amendment in the process )

94lex83457 · 10-25-06, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmarshall

Usually, when this happens, the voters in the state either pass a Constitutional Amendment addressing the question once and for all ( a judge cannot overrule or declare unconstitutional an actual amendment ) or the state legislature clarifies the legal code short of a constitutional amendment.

I know there is some support for gay marriage here and there ( certainly not as much as for civil unions, as cpone has shown ) but across the country as a whole, it is only a small minority. It is not a question of " homophobia " " gay-bashing " , " live and let live " , " sexual orientation ", or anything else along those lines. A clear majority of people coast-to-coast, with a few rare exceptions like Massachusetts, feel that gay marriage, even more so than civil unions, is improper and that marriage is a traditional legal and spiritual contract between one man and one woman. Constitutional Amendments banning gay marriage ( but sometimes accepting civil unions ) have had little difficulty passing in most places they have actually been put on the ballot....and there is little doubt that if Congress would pass one, it would be signed by the President and pass in the necessary 38 states to amend the U.S Constitution itself ( obviously wiping out the MA Amendment in the process )

While it is true that the majority of americans do not support gay marriage, it is absurd to think that there is any sanctity of marriage. Marriage for the majority of its history has been an instituition of economics, not love. Fathers traded daughters in exchange for cows, or land, or money (a dowery). This is not important as the next generation is likely to legalize same sex marriage. Look at some polls, or ask some people under the age of 25, it just is not that big of a deal.

The likelyhood of a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage is tiny as it would pass the senate, house, and Bush, but would not get the 38 states, as most people deem the issue unimportant, and as a state decision, not a federal one.

bitkahuna · 10-25-06, 08:26 PM

We've been down this road in this forum. In the end it boils down to the defending or expanding the definition of a single word: marriage. But this court ruling is not specifically about that.

From CNN...

Quote:

New Jersey's Supreme Court opened the door to gay marriage Wednesday, ruling that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but leaving it to lawmakers to legalize same-sex unions.

The high court gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include same-sex couples or create a new system of civil unions for them.

The ruling is similar to the 1999 decision in Vermont that led to civil unions there, which offer the benefits of marriage, but not the name.

CNN's opening sentence is inflammatory because this ruling doesn't mean the definition of marriage will change in NJ and even if it did change it would be only symbolic as such 'marriages' wouldn't be legally recognized in other states.

Gay "marriage" will likely never be approved across the nation, so "civil unions" with equal legal rights to marriage is likely to be as far as it goes for a while (just like the UK).

I couldn't care less if it's called civil union or marriage but if it's civil union I expect that's a compromise that most will be willing to live with. Traditionalists keep their man/woman definition of marriage, and gay couples get to pay more taxes and have fun with divorces.

EmeraldLexuSC3 · 10-25-06, 08:47 PM

So the people of a northeastern liberal state have had a court impose its will upon the people of the state using the faulty argument of the "equal protection" clause.

mmarshall · 10-26-06, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 94lex83457

The likelyhood of a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage is tiny as it would pass the senate, house, and Bush, but would not get the 38 states, as most people deem the issue unimportant, and as a state decision, not a federal one.

No. I disagree. People DO think it is important, although right now it is being superseded by some other issues, and it would handily get the 38 states it needs. That is why the Democrats in Congress, many of whom are opposed to the Amendment, fought so hard to keep it from passing....and succeeded, for the time being. But they are generally way to the left of the public as a whole on this one.

morris · 10-26-06, 06:16 AM

I am pretty sure that Bans on Gay marriage have passed in every state that it was put on the Ballot. That should say something about where the American people stand on the issue. I think it would pass at the federal level without much problem.

It is also a Federal issue because if someone is married in one state then the marriage is recognized in other states. If I remember correctly that was one of the things that the defense of marriage act was supposed to address.

1SICKLEX · 10-26-06, 08:40 AM

Yes, they get married and now try their hardest to pro-create and start a family..
oh wait...that is not possible is it.....

Our founding fathers are turning in their graves

bitkahuna · 10-26-06, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1SICKLEX

Yes, they get married and now try their hardest to pro-create and start a family..
oh wait...that is not possible is it.....

Our founding fathers are turning in their graves

But do you support gay couples have equal legal rights and tax rules for example if it's not called 'marriage'?

GS wanted · 10-26-06, 11:15 AM

Brings new meaning to the phrase, "dirty jerz."

As for their title, semantics, or overall view I agree with bitkahuna on this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bitkahuna

I couldn't care less if it's called civil union or marriage but if it's civil union I expect that's a compromise that most will be willing to live with. Traditionalists keep their man/woman definition of marriage, and gay couples get to pay more taxes and have fun with divorces.

mkorsu · 10-26-06, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bitkahuna

Amen.

Live and let live. Homophobes afraid of gay couples need to get over it.

Pretty much sums up my feelings.

morris · 10-26-06, 12:06 PM

yea but this is an attempt by the Homosexuals to force their need for acceptance by society down our throats. If they want similar legal rights to heterosexuals then give it to them.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, now they want us to change the defintition of marriage to fit their desires.

Many of us dont care if to homos want to slam each other, meaning we arent afraid of them (ie not homophobic) but the next step after legalized homosexual marriage will be to tell our children in school that Gay is normal and that it is no different than a heterosexual relationship. Well a large percentage of the Amecican people are not ready to tell their kids that homosexuality is normal. If the Governement legalizes it then it is ie we are in effect putting our seal of approval and acceptance on all levels on homosexuality.