Homosexuals Get Equal Rights In New Jersey

[Atlas14]

The English language is public domain.



Some have. Here in Canada the United Church of Canada performs same sex marriages (and in fact lead the legal fight to have them recognised here), as well are some reform synogogues.

Not to be a big meany, but you're nitpicking on my older post that I have since posted after with my more enlightened thoughts on the issue

 

[sysyphus]

So I have. Thought I was on the final page, my apologies.

 

[Atlas14]

So I have. Thought I was on the final page, my apologies.

No biggie! I hadn't realised beforehand that marriage was not a term exclusive to religion in definition.

 

[Cuivienen]

I meant to include a Pro-Gay-Marriage Stance.

Making the assumption that Truronian lives for around another 40 years, I would say that the odds are very good that gay marriage will become legal nationwide, if not by constitutional amendment, within his lifetime.

 

[capslock]

YOu, know, I am not gay, and I never had the right to marry a man, either.

 

[Tycoon101]

Making the assumption that Truronian lives for around another 40 years, I would say that the odds are very good that gay marriage will become legal nationwide, if not by constitutional amendment, within his lifetime.

Only if the majority is for it, and I highly doubt that is the case. 30% For, 30% Against, 40% Indifferent. That's how I see the case.

 

[Perfection]

Only if the majority is for it, and I highly doubt that is the case. 30% For, 30% Against, 40% Indifferent. That's how I see the case.

Time are a changin' me boy, there is a significant trend of younger people being more and more accepting of gay marriage, what makes you think this trend will discontinue.

YOu, know, I am not gay, and I never had the right to marry a man, either.

But about half of the heterosexuals do! You're being descriminated against as well!

 

[Urederra]

I say since marriage is a religious term,.

Marriage precedes religion. It is not a religious term. The church just monopolized for too much time in western society. But people had been married outside western societies, you know, like in China or Africa, and many of these marriages are not religious related.

YOu, know, I am not gay, and I never had the right to marry a man, either.

And why do you want to forbid two people of the same sex to be married? Does it bother you that much? Why?

Only if the majority is for it, and I highly doubt that is the case. 30% For, 30% Against, 40% Indifferent. That's how I see the case.

And if the majority is for banning playing Civilization, will you think that would be a right thing to ban? Majorities have nothing to do with personal choices that does not affect other people's lives. Banning same sex marriages, same as banning playing Civilization because the majority says so is not democracy, is the dictatorship of the majority, because it goes beyond democracy should go, it dictates personal and private choices in you way of living.

 

[capslock]

And why do you want to forbid two people of the same sex to be married? Does it bother you that much? Why?

You missed the point.

I don't care if two men want to live together and sodomize each other on a regular basis. I see no need for Government recognition of this sort of relationship. That is a discussion for another thread probably.

The point is, homosexuals already had equal rights. Any man, regardless of sexual orientation, can marry a woman. No man, whether he is gay or hetero or bi or whatever, can marry another man.

Explain to me how this is not equal rights. The same rules apply to EVERYONE.

 

[Zarn]

It isn't equal rights. That's like saying you can marry anyone of your own gender, but you cannot marry anyone of the opposite gender. We already talked about this.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

This is what I love about the situation New Jersey has got itself into..

Judges are meant to interpret law. A "good" judge for conservatives interprets the law to the letter, allowing no room for moral opinions. New Jersey's Judges interpreted the law to the letter and concluded that marriage privileges extend to the same-sex civil union agreed upon two years ago. What they did was perfectly legit, they did nothing wrong.

What would be really wrong is if they denied equal privileges to homosexual couples just because a personal moral (which isn't even a law) tells them to. That'd just be arbitrary. The Judges followed the rules, which is awesome. If New Jersey feels inclined to ban same-sex marriage, let em' make a statute.


Back on topic, however, I'm glad that courts didn't reject it. It's nice to know my state is known for something else other than a horribly bloated state infrastructure.

 

[Urederra]

Well, you almost answer your question. They have not equal rights because the Government does not recognize that short of relationship for tax or life insurance purposes, to say a couple of advantages of having government recognition.

 

[Panzeh]

What, precisely, is anyone's issue with allowing two men or two women to marry?

It may be equal rights, but does it really matter? Is there a serious legitimate interest in keeping two men or two women from marrying?

 

[capslock]

What, precisely, is anyone's issue with allowing two men or two women to marry?

It may be equal rights, but does it really matter? Is there a serious legitimate interest in keeping two men or two women from marrying?

The question is, is there a serious reason to recognize their unions. Anytime we want a change, we have to have good reasons to change. Its not a "Well, why not?" type of thing.

Only 1 type of union is recognized as a marriage for a reason. Its not rocket science to figure out why, and I'm not going into it because this argument has been done too much here already.

Its not an equal rights issue beacuse this union is available to EVERYONE.

 

[Panzeh]

The question is, is there a serious reason to recognize their unions. Anytime we want a change, we have to have good reasons to change. Its not a "Well, why not?" type of thing.

Only 1 type of union is recognized as a marriage for a reason. Its not rocket science to figure out why, and I'm not going into it because this argument has been done too much here already.

Its not an equal rights issue beacuse this union is available to EVERYONE.

Well, if you can't be bothered to argue the 'why is it this way', then why even defend the status quo?

Let me ask, then. Well, why not?

What is the compelling state interest in keeping marriages strictly defined between a man and a woman?

 

[Zarn]

Read post #70. Would you go for that scenario? That throws your everyone is already equal arguement out the window.

As for why heteros should be able to marry, homosexual couples can adopt, so they could raise future American workers. Also, not all hetero couples can produce. Was that your arguement?

 

[Fifty]

yet another stepping stone on the path of domination for the gay black freemason jew communists that secretly run this country. Wake up people.

 

[Perfection]

It isn't equal rights. That's like saying you can marry anyone of your own gender, but you cannot marry anyone of the opposite gender. We already talked about this.

Sally can marry bob why can't I?

 

[skadistic]

I can't wait for all this to be over. I'd not marry another man but can't see any legit reason why Perf can't marry Bob. It all boils down to people with respect to control freak bigots who want it their way only. Isa it realy so hard to live and let live? If you don'y want gay marriage don't have one. I hope everyone gets fail treatment under the law before I die.

 

[Elrohir]

Your example is only a right because society has agreed that it is. In Medieval England they did not agree on that right, and as such it did not exist.

I disagree. Rights are inherent. Medieval England may not have recognized that right, but I believe they should have.

Like I said, it gets rid of adultery!

Because heterosexual couples never commit adultery!