Homosexuals Get Equal Rights In New Jersey

[sysyphus]

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.

There is absolutely nothing here that explains how heterosexual only marriage provides equity before the law. Nothing.

 

[sysyphus]

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.

Again, use of the English language is public domain, and if two gay people want to describe their relationship as a marriage then they have every right to. No church owns the word.

 

[Goonie]

Brighteye - are you advocating the state get out of marriage all together then?

 

[MobBoss]

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

On a national level, I dont see this hurting or helping the republicans that much.

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 Foley scandal is over. Even the polls show this as many republican candidates have closed to within "toss up" range of their democrat opponents. The Foley scandal wasnt quite the October suprise the democrats had hoped for. In the end, people saw that no laws had been broken and no charges have been filed.

If anything, the New Jersey vote will only empower the voters in the 10 or so states that have marriage issues on the ballots to pass those measures in those states. Nobody with a right to vote likes to see those issues ruled over by only 7 unelected people.

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.

I dont think that is a title they were touting in any event. The titles of "Providers of a great economy" and "Best on National Security" are enough thank you very much.

 

[MobBoss]

Again, use of the English language is public domain, and if two gay people want to describe their relationship as a marriage then they have every right to. No church owns the word.

Correct. They can call it whatever they want. But for all intents and purposes, the state does own the word and they dont have to recognize your "marriage" if it does not conform to the states definition of one.

 

[Zarn]

Apparently the state (NJ) is going towards homosexual marriage. I guess you lose.

 

[Captain Planet]

The United States of America has got to be the only nation in the Western world that uses older (archaic) definitions of laws to stop the proliferation of new laws.

Hello? This is why society advances; because we're able to change our existing political structure to reflect the intellect and advancement of society.

Who gives a rat's ass how whatever stupid law defines marriage. Change the bloody thing and get over it like the rest of the civilized world.

 

[skadistic]

The United States of America has got to be the only nation in the Western world that uses older (archaic) definitions of laws to stop the proliferation of new laws.

Hello? This is why society advances; because we're able to change our existing political structure to reflect the intellect and advancement of society.

Who gives a rat's ass how whatever stupid law defines marriage. Change the bloody thing and get over it like the rest of the civilized world.

The rest of the civilized world isn't bogged down by the "moral majority" that knows whats best for everyone as per their religious views. Even when others don't share those views.

 

[Captain Planet]

The rest of the civilized world isn't bogged down by the "moral majority" that knows whats best for everyone as per their religious views. Even when others don't share those views.

The worst part is the majority is a minority; but not in power.

 

[MobBoss]

Apparently the state (NJ) is going towards homosexual marriage. I guess you lose.

Proof please? What 7 supreme court judges do in chambers is not indicative of what the man on the street feels. Does your statement mean that you are ok with the state holding a public vote on the subject? Lets let the people have their say and I will abide by that.

 

[MobBoss]

The United States of America has got to be the only nation in the Western world that uses older (archaic) definitions of laws to stop the proliferation of new laws.

Wrong. Incredibly wrong. In how many countries worldwide is homosexual marriage legal? Only 4 (maybe 5...cant recall exactly) out of ALL of the nations of the world. Archaic? No way.

Hello? This is why society advances; because we're able to change our existing political structure to reflect the intellect and advancement of society.

I humbly submit that endorsing gay marriage has nothing to do with advancement of intellect or society. In fact, I believe it to be bad for society.

Who gives a rat's ass how whatever stupid law defines marriage.

Well, law abiding citizens do for one. And apparently a vast majority of americans do as well.

Change the bloody thing and get over it like the rest of the civilized world.

The vast majority of the civilized world thinks the way the USA does. Perhaps is the extreme minority that has already changed it should get over it and be like the rest of the civilized world?

 

[.Shane.]

Lets let the people have their say and I will abide by that.

Somehow I don't think you'd feel that way if the issue was abortion or ending the war in Iraq.

 

[silver 2039]

What ever happened to the rights of the individual? Its a good step for equality finally. I am glad the Motherland is so progressive.

 

[MobBoss]

Somehow I don't think you'd feel that way if the issue was abortion or ending the war in Iraq.

And I will tell you right now your wrong in your thinking. We already had a referendum on the Iraq war...it was called the 2004 presidential election. We will have another on it as well this year...and another in 2008.

 

[Mathilda]

Wrong. Incredibly wrong. In how many countries worldwide is homosexual marriage legal? Only 4 (maybe 5...cant recall exactly) out of ALL of the nations of the world. Archaic? No way.

Let me help your memory.
From wiki

Civil unions, domestic partnerships or registered partnership offer varying amounts of the benefits of marriage, which are available in: Andorra, Argentina, Brazil, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom; the Australian state of Tasmania, and the U.S. states of California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, and Vermont; and the U.S. District of Columbia (Washington, DC).

At least for me all the other forms count as well, not just wehre it called "marriage". At least for now.
The equal position under law is far more important than semantics.

 

[.Shane.]

We already had a referendum on the Iraq war...it was called the 2004 presidential election. We will have another on it as well this year...and another in 2008.

Nice try.

As you no doubt understand, presidential elections are not simply about 1 thing. And, yes, while something like the Iraq War was a big issue in 2004. Its not even the sole item of the fear "security" issue as a larger whole.

If you were half the populist you're acting in this thread you'd be for national referendums on any issue of substance. But, I'd bet you're not. Esp. given how the SC is now in a good position to rule favorable on your agenda. And, if they do, I promise you I won't whine that they're thwarting the popular will. See, I understand why the court system was created as it was and the role it plays.

So, rather than flip-flop my viewpoint of the Constitution to fit my current needs, I'll go with the system as intended and vote for politicians who, I hope will support judges that share my viewpoint, no doubt as you've done and will do.

 

[cegman]

MOBBOSS WTH how was the presidential election a referendum on Iraq war. we had bush muddling about and then we had John Kerry who kept saying "Vote for me cause I'm not Bush" Both would have stayed in the war most likely at that time and :Bush may have used gay marriage to bring the moral minority to the polls that helped tip it his way. (note: if you wish I will strike the last part of the moral minority if you chose to ignore the rest)

 

[sysyphus]

Correct. They can call it whatever they want. But for all intents and purposes, the state does own the word and they dont have to recognize your "marriage" if it does not conform to the states definition of one.

The state owns its own usuage of the word yes, but they don't have to recognise the church's definition either.

 

[Urederra]

Let me help your memory.
From wiki

At least for me all the other forms count as well, not just wehre it called "marriage". At least for now.
The equal position under law is far more important than semantics.

and I would add...

At present, same-sex marriages are recognized in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, and the U.S. state of Massachusetts (for same-sex marriages performed within that state under its laws).

from the same wiki article.

I humbly submit that endorsing gay marriage has nothing to do with advancement of intellect or society. In fact, I believe it to be bad for society.

Care to elaborate? Are you afraid of catching 'gay' or something?

 

[MobBoss]

Let me help your memory.
From wiki

At least for me all the other forms count as well, not just wehre it called "marriage". At least for now.
The equal position under law is far more important than semantics.

Sorry, but again I humbly submit that a civil union or partnership is not a marriage. Example: The UK law defining civil unions is very explicite on this point. Another example: In the US, the only state that allows SSM is Massachusetts and yet your list includes several states which do not in fact allow SSM.

As has been mentioned before...you can call it whatever you want, it still does not make it a marriage. And as I stated, as also did Urederra, that full blown legal SSM is only found in four countries.