Homosexuals Get Equal Rights In New Jersey

[GenMarshall]

I do agree with what you say MobBoss. Personally, I don't want seven people in the court to make a decision. I would rather have it dealt with in the legislature or place it in a vote so that all can voice their opinions.

 

[Truronian]

I think the fact that everyone gets a say in matters that only affect a minority is one of the downsides of an otherwise superior system.

 

[sysyphus]

I think the fact that everyone gets a say in matters that only affect a minority is one of the downsides of an otherwise superior system.

That's why there is a Constitution that gurantees basic rights that cannot be taken away, not even at the hands of any size majority.

 

[MobBoss]

That's why there is a Constitution that gurantees basic rights that cannot be taken away, not even at the hands of any size majority.

Of which, gay marriage is not one. Sorry. Even the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling said as much.

 

[Truronian]

That's why there is a Constitution that gurantees basic rights that cannot be taken away, not even at the hands of any size majority.

Can a majority not amend the constitution however? I'm not convinced the constitution is the almighty garauntee its made out to be.

 

[Sidhe]

The constitution only applies to those who are within the remit of it, essentially the constitution is against anything that doesn't come within it's remit but of course we'll just abuse it, essentially we change it to suit our perspective, the constitution is BS, we'll make it up as we go along. Way it works no one cares if you disagree. Equality is based on meaningless banter.

 

[sysyphus]

Of which, gay marriage is not one. Sorry. Even the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling said as much.

No, but equity before the law is.

Can a majority not amend the constitution however? I'm not convinced the constitution is the almighty garauntee its made out to be.

Yes, but it takes an overwhemling majority. At least it does in Canada, I can't speak for the US. Here any change requires approval minimum of 7 of 10 provinces which must combine for a minimum of 50% of the population. Since our Constitution was implemented in 1982 there have been no changes. There was a referendum in the early 90s on a number of changes but it failed.

There is also a notwithsatnding claus ethat Parliament can use to override it, but this clause is meant for emergency use, and any government which uses it would pay a very large political penalty for doing so.

As well, even many opponents of gay marriage would probably balk at the idea of removing an equity before the law clause, that could come back to haunt just about anybody.

 

[Cuivienen]

No, but equity before the law is.



Yes, but it takes an overwhemling majority. At least it does in Canada, I can't speak for the US. Here any change requires approval minimum of 7 of 10 provinces which must combine for a minimum of 50% of the population. Since our Constitution was implemented in 1982 there have been no changes. There was a referendum in the early 90s on a number of changes but it failed.

There is also a notwithsatnding claus ethat Parliament can use to override it, but this clause is meant for emergency use, and any government which uses it would pay a very large political penalty for doing so.

As well, even many opponents of gay marriage would probably balk at the idea of removing an equity before the law clause, that could come back to haunt just about anybody.

The US Constitution requires 2/3, or 34, states to approve an Amendment passed by 2/3 of both the House and the Senate. Alternatively, if Congress refuses to pass an Amendment that the states want, 2/3 of state legislatures can call a Constitutional Convention and do whatever they want with the Constitution.

 

[MobBoss]

No, but equity before the law is.

Again......the law is equal in regards to this matter. In that opinion, New Jersey is outnumbered 20+ states to 2 or 3 (Delaware and Massachusetts being the other two). Just because 4 people rule it so in New Jersey does NOT mean that its unequal....it means its unequal until we get a few more conservatives on that state supreme court....just like it was equal until more liberals got appointed.

EDIT: OR...you can have the general populace of a state vote to define marriage as being between a man and a woman as a state constitutional amendment. This has been done in many states, which in turn, makes the very definition of marriage a constitutional one so that the supremes have no choice to but recognize its legality.

Currently, there is a bid to have such a vote before the general population in Massachusetts, which, of course, the gay lobby is trying to block. Why would they try to block the majority actually voting on such a constitutional amendment? Because its evident that the majority would certainly approve it...even in such a state as Massachusetts.

 

[Gilder]

Currently, there is a bid to have such a vote before the general population in Massachusetts, which, of course, the gay lobby is trying to block. Why would they try to block the majority actually voting on such a constitutional amendment? Because its evident that the majority would certainly approve it...even in such a state as Massachusetts.

Because apparently they even know that they're right to get married is going to be taken away. And they should try to block it.

 

[Peri]

Can anyone provide a cogent argument as to why marriage between two people of the same sex should not be allowed?

 

[ParkCungHee]

A question for those who dont believe "majority rules". If that is the case then why let 7 people in a court make a decision for the millions of people who live in a state?

Perhaps because we dont believe in majority rule?

 

[MobBoss]

Because apparently they even know that they're right to get married is going to be taken away. And they should try to block it.

Listen to what you are saying. You actually agree with a very small number of people lobbying taking away the peoples right to vote on an issue? Isnt that taking away the voices of millions on the issue? How on earth can you say that is democracy?

Let the people of the state vote on it as a state constitutional amendment. Other states have and passed same. Why not Massachusetts? Are you simply afraid of the result?

Perhaps because we dont believe in majority rule?

Actually the Supreme Court of the US has already said that it is the right of the people to decide how they would define marriage.

And yes..we do believe in majority rule and we practice it regularly. Or should we put Ralph Nader as president because a minority voted for him?

 

[Kyriakos]

I do not see any reason why marriage should be defined as "a union between a man and a woman".
If you are interested in marriage from the social perspective (ie social rights, tax benefits etc) then it is just a social institution and all people ina state should have completely equal rights in regards to it.
If you are interested in some more personal notion of what marriage supposedly is, then it is just your own problem, and should not affect other individuals, who on their part had nothing to do with what you need to identify in marriage.

 

[C~G]

My solution would be create civil union to all federal states that permits two consenting adults get married if they want.

Let church and state define their own laws for "marriage" and give certain benefits based into certain qualities such as how many children people have in marriage or how long marriage have lasted.

If you want to promote marriage between opposite sexes, you use carrot and stick for them, not try to forbid samesex union.

Then you can say civil union is right and marriage is priviledge.
If you want to dispute the rights of marriage in court, do it in your state rather than in federal court as it only acknowledges civil union. Marriage is state and church thing.

But this is all hypothetical since it's probably unconstitutional in all levels.

 

[Brighteye]

Can anyone provide a cogent argument as to why marriage between two people of the same sex should not be allowed?

Marriage is a religious institution, and should be defined by the religion. In many cases this will be a coupling of a man and a woman. It is up to the religion to decide if same-sex marriages are acceptable, not the state.

However, since the state grants benefits to committed life partners, it should ensure that religious marriage is not the only way of acquiring these benefits, and have a separate civil union as the part of marriage that the state recognises. Such a civil union would be available to any combination of two consenting adults.

 

[Eukaryote]

Sounds Good.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Can anyone provide a cogent argument as to why marriage between two people of the same sex should not be allowed?

Cause they'll burn in hell . . .?

Seriously, if homosexuality really is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord, getting married doesn't make it worse. And anyone who thinks that isfree not to support the institution, or idea, or recognition, of gay marriage; but I haven't seen a good argument against it on non-religious grounds.

Civil Unions for All, same sex or opposite sex!

 

[Leifmk]

Marriage is a religious institution

However, it is not. Or rather, it does not originate as, and has never (except in some religiously monolithic societies) been exclusively, a religious institution. In European Christian societies, the idea that a marriage had to be sanctified by religious ceremony to be legally valid wasn't established until well after the reformation, and it has never been universal. In most European and Europe-derived countries, purely civil (i.e. secular) marriages have been on the books at least since the 19th century -- in some places (Scotland, at least) they've always been an option. And the terminology used to describe this institution (in English) has always been "marriage" (or "civil marriage" to distinguish it from a religious one). Claims like the one you begin your post with are simply incorrect.

 

[Gingerbread Man]

I've got a question that might link back to the topic a little better.

Two questions, really. How do you think the Republican party will use this to further their agenda, and will they succeed?

Personally, I would think that at most, the states with marriage amendments will see a temporary change in the races, however whether that will be big enough to offset things in the GOP's favour enough on election day is open to speculation. The Foley scandal, however, will take much of the bight out of these old tactics, and possibly more so if details of the investigation are leaked.

The GOP no longer holds the title of 'saviours from the evil homos'. If there will be an effect, it will be nothing like 2004.