dtwclipper
Posts: 6668
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:17 am

NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:16 am

TRENTON, New Jersey (AP) -- New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/25/jersey.samesex.ap/index.html
Compare New York Air, the Airline that works for your Business
 
trekster
Posts: 4319
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 2:47 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:20 am

At last,

America sees sense
Good one
Where does the time go???
 
searpqx
Posts: 4173
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 10:36 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:23 am

Interesting way to go, especially in an emotionally charged issue like this. Basically saying they deserve the same rights, but leaving it up to the Legislature to define how its implemented. Be interesting to see how they handle it.
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
 
TWFirst
Posts: 5752
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 5:30 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:36 am

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 2):
Interesting way to go, especially in an emotionally charged issue like this. Basically saying they deserve the same rights, but leaving it up to the Legislature to define how its implemented. Be interesting to see how they handle it

Exact same thing that happened in Vermont. Hopefully, this time, the state legislature will interpret the ruling as it is intended and authorize same-sex marriage licenses to be issued.
An unexamined life isn't worth living.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:37 am

Quoting Trekster (Reply 1):
At last,

America sees sense
Good one

But they did it in the way that most conservatives are OK with. Yes, in principle they should have the same priviledges, but it is the elected legislature which must write the law. Whether it will be called marriage or civil union will be up to the legislature. The court recognized that it is not the place of the court to write law. Which is what we conservatives wanted.

Good decision.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:43 am

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 2):
but leaving it up to the Legislature to define how its implemented

Finally a court with a common sense to realize that it is up to legislators to legislate. That was more of a victory than the decision itself. In regards to the decision it just upholds the lower courts decisions and the thrust is to deny outright marriage and continue to allow civil unions. One other matter..

Gay marriage supporters have had a two-year losing streak, striking out in state courts in New York and Washington state and in ballot boxes in 15 states where constitutions have been amended to ban same-sex unions.

If the last part of that doesn't tell gays something, then I don't know what will stop a Constitutional amendment from passing in record time. Sometimes it's just best to leave a sleeping dog lie.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:47 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 4):
Whether it will be called marriage or civil union will be up to the legislature. The court recognized that it is not the place of the court to write law. Which is what we conservatives wanted.

 checkmark 

This is all about semantics and meanings of words. I know no conservatives who would be against a 'civil union' as compared to those who oppose 'gay marriage'. To point it out, heterosexual and homosexual people in the US already have restrictions on whom they marry. Marriage is not denied to gay people (I have a few example of gay people marrying someone of the opposite sex for immigration purposes), there are restrictions placed on all of us as to whom we can marry.

We should all just simply say that civil unions is a good compromise solution and then move on.
 
TWFirst
Posts: 5752
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 5:30 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:51 am

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 5):
If the last part of that doesn't tell gays something, then I don't know what will stop a Constitutional amendment from passing in record time. Sometimes it's just best to leave a sleeping dog lie.

You would feel quite differently if this issue personally affected you, which it does not. And it does tell us something alright... it tells us that most of this country is hypocritical and cannot tell the difference between equalizing legal benefits for its citizens (supposedly a core tenet of our country), and a religious ceremony... but I think that's an area where the marriage equality camp could have done a better job.

At its very simplest, its gender discrimination, plain and simple. But the good news is a constitutional amendment will NOT pass "in record time". It won't pass at all. Especially after congress changes hands here in a couple weeks.
An unexamined life isn't worth living.
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:56 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 6):
We should all just simply say that civil unions is a good compromise solution and then move on.

As long as the civil union is granted the same rights a hetero-couple would be afforded with tax breaks, job benefits etc then I am fine with civil unions or whatever you want to call it. The bottom line is that the constitutional amendments that have passed in many states, are state sponsored discrimination. Hopefully when the tide turns on Penn. Ave in 08, there will be some national legislation allowing for civil unions.
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:19 am

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 7):
You would feel quite differently if this issue personally affected you,

But it does... I am opposed to gay marriage on several levels.

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 7):
(supposedly a core tenet of our country),

Where in the Constitution does it say that just because you decide to sleep with someone of the same sex that you are automaticaly granted the right to be married to that person? Meanwhile, the concept of marraige, a union between a man and woman, with at least one of the purposes being pro creation, stretches back to the very begining of civilasation without any regard to religion.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 3972
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:31 am

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 9):
But it does...

Oh really, how?

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 5):

If the last part of that doesn't tell gays something, then I don't know what will stop a Constitutional amendment from passing in record time. Sometimes it's just best to leave a sleeping dog lie.

I'd really like to know the causation between state referenda and their effect on amending the US Constitution....
The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12390
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:39 am

The court ordered the NJ State Legislature that within 180 days to change the laws to conform to total equal rights of same gender couples to marriage or the equivalent with the name civil unions or still call it marriage.
What I am concerned with are 2 important issues:
1) That public officials who have the power of the State to perform civil marriages, unless they decline to preform any civil marriages, would be legally ordered to perform same sex civil marriages/civil unions, even if same sex unions would be in offense for their personal faith beliefs.
2) Religious organizations and their owned or controlled institutions like churches/temples/mosques, adoption and foster home organizations, Hospitals, social services, may have to offer for example the same health care and pension benefits to same gender couples, even though such unions cannot be recognized due their faith beliefs as they do to heterosexual marriages.
Any change in the laws must allow for conscious refusal or exemptions as to the cirucmstances as I noted above.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:41 am

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 8):
As long as the civil union is granted the same rights a hetero-couple...

I think that has already been granted in some areas and should be granted in others as well.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 8):
there will be some national legislation allowing for civil unions

Probably, as long as that is the legal definition.

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 7):
At its very simplest, its gender discrimination, plain and simple.

Not at all. Even us heterosexuals in the US have accepted restrictions on our right to marriage, I cannot marry my sister, someone underage, or additional women if I felt like it. A gay person in the US has the same marriage rights that I have, no different. You would end this by allowing civil unions.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:42 am

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 7):
And it does tell us something alright... it tells us that most of this country is hypocritical and cannot tell the difference between equalizing legal benefits for its citizens (supposedly a core tenet of our country), and a religious ceremony...

That is an old problem - the state (not only in the US, but in almost every country) got involved in marriage, which is rooted in religion. The state decided a traditional marriage would not be recognized by the state you had to be married by a state-appointed person.

In many countries, the two are completely seperated. In Switzerland, I had my state wedding at the town hall, and we had our religious wedding 2 days later.

In America, it's even more confusing, because the state marriage and the religious wedding are normally combined. But people should remember that they are two completely different events. One is the traditional marriage, which is a promise to each other and God, and the other is the civil union where the state recognizes two people wanting to live together permenantly.

Unfortunately the state has called it's activity marriage as well, instead of civil union or something like that, and it is this userpation that gives rise to the problems today.

I don't know of a single conservative that objects to a civil union between gays, with all the tax breaks and everything that heterosexual couples get. But we just don't want it to be called marriage. Marriage is a tradition that has been around for 10,000 years or more, and you can't just throw it on its ear without getting people very upset. So why do it?
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:44 am

I used to think that this was a states rights issue and that was how it should be solved. While this may be what happens, I no longer think it is the best way. I think the government, at all levels, needs to get out of the marriage business. By that I mean there is no longer a legal status called married. Simplify the tax code so there is no longer a distinction there either. All property and decision making issues should be resolved by contracts and powers of attorney. Leave marriage ceremonies up to the churches. When I look back at my wedding, the signing of the documents to make everything official was such a small, insignificant part anyway. The vows we took before God, friends, and family were far more important. I have become convinced that all the laws and court rulings just lead to greater government intrusion and less freedom overall.
Proud OOTSK member
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:45 am

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 5):
Finally a court with a common sense to realize that it is up to legislators to legislate. That was more of a victory than the decision itself. In regards to the decision it just upholds the lower courts decisions and the thrust is to deny outright marriage and continue to allow civil unions.

Actually, that was the opinion of the NY Court as also the MA Court. While the MA Court did not spell this out (being the first Court to rule on the issue of gay marriage favorably), that was implicit in the decision. Courts after the MA decision have spelled this out keeping political realities in mind.

Now lets see how Kean exploits this in a very tough election battle, and what scarface, I mean Menendez, has to say in rebuttal.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:52 am

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 9):
But it does... I am opposed to gay marriage on several levels.

Then stay out of NJ. And since you are most likely "straight" fear not we will resist the urge to convert you.
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
BCAInfoSys
Posts: 2617
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 11:09 pm

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:05 am

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 9):
Meanwhile, the concept of marraige, a union between a man and woman, with at least one of the purposes being pro creation, stretches back to the very begining of civilasation without any regard to religion.

Sorry Gilligan, you're a good guy but I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Marriage is FAR from a stagnant institution. It has changed numerous times over the eons.

I wrote a paper on the subject several months ago. I addressed this specific issue. I'll post the paper here for commentary (sorry, the images/graphs are missing. But you'll get the jist of what I'm trying to say.)

***********************************

The ‘Defense of Marriage’ – A Hollow Argument



4/6/2006

Marriage: the premiere social institution which exists as the basic structure of western culture and family definition. Marriage remains today, as it has for thousands of years, the pinnacle of human relationships; the ultimate testament of love between two people. The institution of marriage however has not been stagnant; it is a dynamic, evolving structure which has changed throughout the eons to adapt to societal values. The debate over what defines a marriage is raging again today; about whether or not the benefits of marriage should be extended to same-sex couples. Given the spirit of equality that this country was founded on, the ideals to which we all aspire to; it is only right and proper that marriage should once again evolve to include same-sex couples. The moralistic “Defense of Marriage” counter-movement is not only morally-indefensible; it will ultimately fall to challenges in our justice system.

The history of marriage dates back to writings in the Old Testament and ancient Egypt, the oldest known writings which indicate of a sworn partnership between two people. For the first few thousand years, marriage represented virtual imprisonment for women in patriarchal societies. During these times, marriage was not so much a partnership as it was man’s dominion over women. Marriage represented a man “owning” his wife, as if she were property which existed solely for his benefit. It was not until the beginning of the twentieth century that this antiquated system began to change. Thanks to the Women’s Suffrage movement, marriage became less like a dictatorial system and more of a partnership.

At one point in the first half of the twentieth century, 40 states had laws on the books which prohibited the marriage of a person of Caucasian descent to “a person of color.” Interracial marriages were deemed to be “immoral and unnatural.” The origins of the Civil Rights Movement began with the 1948 California State Supreme Court ruling which declared the ban on interracial marriages to be unconstitutional. This was the first victory in the movement which climaxed with the 1967 US Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. (Sec. II, Par. 2)


So given the context of this historical evolution, is it not reasonable to extend the benefits of marriage once again to same-sex couples? The spirit of the 1967 ruling may well prove to be the legal basis for overturning prohibitions of same-sex marriages. Marriage existing as “one of the basic civil rights of man” should be extended to all persons, regardless of their chosen legal partner. The basic tenant of the ruling is that marriages cannot be prohibited on the basis of traits which are beyond a person’s control, such as race or sexual orientation. There are some religious groups which believe that sexual orientation is a choice, however this has been firmly refuted by the American Psychological Association (APA):

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed (Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality).


So to evaluate the merits of the “Defense of Marriage” arguments, we must first take a look at how “traditional” marriage is faring. Quite poorly is the simple answer. In the last 50 years, the percentage of married-couple households has plummeted from just under 80% to around 50%. At the same time, the number of households headed by unmarried heterosexual couples has skyrocketed, as illustrated by the following charts. In the twenty-five year period from 1977 – 2002, the number of opposite-sex unmarried couples jumped from 1 million all the way to 5 million. While divorce numbers seem to be leveling off, it is the rate of straight couples with children who cohabitate without ever marrying that is alarming.



To evaluate why “traditional” marriage is losing the position it once had, several factors need to be considered. First, marriage in yesteryear was often one of the only ways to ensure financial stability for women and children. However with ever-increasing opportunities for women as well as readily-available education options, women are not forced into marriage solely for financial stability. Second, technology has enabled information to be much more readily available, resulting in younger generations that are much better informed about marriage and what it entails before taking their vows. With better access to education and financial opportunities, many modern committed couples are electing to live together in domestic partnerships without entering into a marriage which many today view as “confining”.

So given the facts about traditional marriage, why the crusade to save it? In its current form, is marriage worth saving? Or will the institution of marriage be validated further by extending it to all loving partnerships, regardless of sexual orientation? What exactly is the “Defense of Marriage” campaign trying to defend marriage from? All of these logical questions seemingly go unanswered by this counter-movement.

Many of the arguments which fuel this discrimination are morally subjective and not universally accepted. However, there are many of their arguments which can be refuted logically without straying into the murky realm of religion and morality, which is ambiguous at best. The following paragraphs are an attempt to put to bed some of the myths surrounding same sex-couples.

“Homosexual partnerships don’t provide a good atmosphere for raising children.” This blatantly discriminatory statement was put to the test in the Hawaii State Supreme Court in Baehr v. Miike. In testimony from numerous witnesses for both the plaintiffs and the defense, the court heard testimony that same-sex partners make equal and in some case superior parents then traditional couples. In evaluations from the children’s teachers, the children raised by same sex parents showed no difference from the other children in regard to all relevant issues including intelligence, self-confidence, popularity, etc.

“If same-sex marriage is legalized, you’re setting up a slippery slope where the legalization of polygamy, bestiality, and all sorts of other deviant behavior is sure to follow.” The “slippery slope” argument is a common argument that has been used for years to prey on the natural fear of the unknown. It is a baseless argument which has no bearing. There has been absolutely no evidence of increased rates of “other deviant behavior” or efforts to legalize said behavior in the countries which have legalized same-sex marriage. Countries such as Canada, Holland, and France have extended the benefits and protections of marriage to all consenting, loving adults and the repercussions often foretold by religious groups having failed to materialize.

“Marriage shouldn’t be changed; it has lasted as it is for thousands of years.” First, marriage has not gone unchanged for thousands of years, it has changed several times to grow and change with society. As discussed previously, Women’s Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement both fundamentally changed the nature of marriage; so why should homosexual equality be any different? Second, even if marriage had gone unchanged, to assert that it shouldn’t be changed just because it is tradition is a logical fallacy; argumentum ad antiquitatem. Just because the institution of marriage is old, does not mean it is perfect. War, bigotry, and slavery all have existed for thousands of years; do they need to be protected from change as well?

What should marriage really be about? Is marriage solely a financially and procreative association? Is it something that should be used to exclude others solely because of prejudice and fear of the unknown? No, that is not what marriage should be. Marriage should represent the ultimate commitment to another human being. Matrimony is a promise to be together through good and bad, enduring all trials, and sharing your love together for your lifetimes. Marriage should remain the pinnacle of our social structures, but it should do so all inclusively. All true love is equal and should be celebrated by all equally, not at the expense of certain groups. So we must ask ourselves, who really gains if the “Defense of Marriage” movement succeeds? The only ones who benefit are those close-minded individuals who wish to remain isolated in their own imagined self-righteousness. The repression of groups based solely on their sexual orientation serves only to profit those who would exclude homosexuals; namely fundamentalist religious organizations. Thus, it is only a manner of time before our society realizes that to subjugate entire classes of people based only on their sexual preference is not only utterly wrong, but completely contrary to the ideals on which our justice system has been built.


Works Cited


“Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.” 2004. American Psychology Association.
6 Apr. 2006 http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31

Loving v. Virginia, Case Number 388, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, 12 June 1967. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...etcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

Baehr v. Miike, Case Number 20371, Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii, 9 Dec. 1999. http://www.hawaii.gov/jud/20371.htm

Masci, David. “Future of Marriage: Is traditional matrimony going out of style?” CQ Researcher 14 (2004): 397-420.

Lipkin, Robert J. “The Harm of Same Sex Marriage: Real or Imagined?”
Widener Law Review 11 (2005): 277-308.

“Same-Sex Marriage: A Selective Bibliography of the Legal Literature.” Ed. Paul Axel-Lute. 31 Mar. 2006. 7 Apr. 2006 http://law-library.rutgers.edu/SSM.html
Militant Agnostic - I don't know and you don't either.
 
nkops
Posts: 2156
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 10:09 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:10 am

I hope this comes up for a vote in NJ, let the citizens decide what the defenition of marriage is, not the lawmakers.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 13):
Marriage is a tradition that has been around for 10,000 years or more, and you can't just throw it on its ear without getting people very upset.

 checkmark 

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 6):
We should all just simply say that civil unions is a good compromise solution and then move on.

That'll never happen... it's an all or nothing scenario. Gays will not be happy unless they get marriage rights, and religious sects won't be happy until it is completely abolished.

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 7):
You would feel quite differently if this issue personally affected you,

But it does, its against my beliefs, therefore it affects me.
:evil:
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:13 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 6):
We should all just simply say that civil unions is a good compromise solution and then move on.

Agree. But many opponents of gay marriage (at least the ones who are in power) want to ban gay marriage and any other alliances that closely approximate it.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 13):
I don't know of a single conservative that objects to a civil union between gays, with all the tax breaks and everything that heterosexual couples get.

Then you must not know too many conservatives.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
BCAInfoSys
Posts: 2617
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 11:09 pm

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:17 am

Quoting Nkops (Reply 18):
I hope this comes up for a vote in NJ, let the citizens decide what the defenition of marriage is, not the lawmakers.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 13):
Marriage is a tradition that has been around for 10,000 years or more, and you can't just throw it on its ear without getting people very upset.

checkmark

Read what I wrote.. marriage has NOT BEEN A STAGNANT INSTITUTION. It has changed many times to reflect the times. It needs to do so again. Just because it's against your beliefs doesn't mean a thing. You have no right to force your beliefs on to others. Whatever happened to tolerance and acceptance?

Steve
*Straight But Not Narrow*
Militant Agnostic - I don't know and you don't either.
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 3972
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:23 am

Quoting Nkops (Reply 18):
let the citizens decide what the defenition of marriage is, not the lawmakers.

Yeah, because its not like its their job to make laws! You and Gilligan need to realize state referendums don't make U.S. Constitutional amendments, which it will eventually come down to. First, its that the judiciary should not be making the laws, and now its the legislative body that shouldn't be making the laws!! Its blatantly obvious that you have no regard for the proper means to go about this measure, only the most favorable means to come to your desirable outcome. If the general public was tilted for the most part in the other direction, I know you sure wouldn't be all 'let the citizens decide!!!'. Give me a break.

Quoting Nkops (Reply 18):

But it does, its against my beliefs, therefore it affects me.

Ha, right. If it's against your beliefs, then don't get one. The U.S. Constitution doesn't give a shit about enforcing your beliefs.

[Edited 2006-10-26 00:27:02]
The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:24 am

Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 20):
You have no right to force your beliefs on to others.

Like the belief that marriage needs to be rewritten?
Proud OOTSK member
 
nkops
Posts: 2156
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 10:09 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:28 am

Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 20):
You have no right to force your beliefs on to others. Whatever happened to tolerance and acceptance?

I'm not forcing my beliefs on anybody, nearly stating my beliefs just like this person

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 9):
But it does... I am opposed to gay marriage on several levels.

And that is protected under the first amendment, just like gays speaking their beliefs to have gay marriage is protected.

Tolerance and acceptance is not acceptable when it sacrifices your belief system.

P.S. what grade did you get on the paper, although I don't agree with all of it, I must say it is very well written.
:evil:
 
BCAInfoSys
Posts: 2617
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 11:09 pm

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:41 am

Quoting Nkops (Reply 23):
Tolerance and acceptance is not acceptable when it sacrifices your belief system.

Think about it this way, homosexuals firmly believe that they are equal and should be treated equally. So whose beliefs get to trump the other's? In a situation like this, I believe that the choice which results in the highest level of liberty and personal choice must prevail. If two sides disagree, a reasonable country must choose the side which most upholds the highest tenants of our legal system; equality and non-discrimination for all.

Quoting Nkops (Reply 23):
P.S. what grade did you get on the paper, although I don't agree with all of it, I must say it is very well written.

I got a perfect A. And thank you, it speaks well of you that you can at least debate without getting into mudslinging.

[Edited 2006-10-26 00:45:17]
Militant Agnostic - I don't know and you don't either.
 
Charger
Posts: 264
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:20 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:41 am

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 9):
But it does... I am opposed to gay marriage on several levels

What specifically? I'm a straight male, been married for 16 years, and I'm catholic, and it doesn't bother me. Let them get married and have the same rights as everyone else.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 12):
Not at all. Even us heterosexuals in the US have accepted restrictions on our right to marriage, I cannot marry my sister, someone underage, or additional women if I felt like it.

Are you for real? I know this appeals to some people, but why?

Quoting Nkops (Reply 18):
But it does, its against my beliefs, therefore it affects me.

What beliefs?
Religious? Is it your responsibility to ensure everyone doesn't sin?
Moral? Is it your responsibility to ensure everyone does the right thing?
Political? What is the big deal? To stop a group of people from filing their taxes jointly?

With everything going on in the world today this is what we have to worry about?
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 3972
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:42 am

Quoting Nkops (Reply 23):
And that is protected under the first amendment, just like gays speaking their beliefs to have gay marriage is protected.

Uh, ok, go ahead and play the first amendment card....

When has anyone tried to take away your rights to say it? It's merely the evaluation of your beliefs on the grounds that they do not produce fair and Constitutional legislation.

Quoting Nkops (Reply 23):

Tolerance and acceptance is not acceptable when it sacrifices your belief system.

Thats great, but it makes no practical sense what-so-ever in determining the supreme law of the land to govern 300 million people, with probably millions of different belief systems! That kind of attitude would work in a totalitarian dictatorship where there is really only one applicable 'belief system'. Fortunately for this country, this is not a dictatorship, and that your 'belief system' is not universally representative for us.

[Edited 2006-10-26 00:49:50]
The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
 
BCAInfoSys
Posts: 2617
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 11:09 pm

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:42 am

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 22):
Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 20):
You have no right to force your beliefs on to others.

Like the belief that marriage needs to be rewritten?

So following your logic:

- Women should be the personal property of their husbands
- Women should not be allowed to vote
- Racial minorities should not be allowed to vote
- Racial minorities should not be allowed to marry outside of their race

Yeah.. that's solid logic.  Yeah sure
Militant Agnostic - I don't know and you don't either.
 
nkops
Posts: 2156
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 10:09 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:48 am

Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 24):
And thank you, it speaks well of you that you can at least debate without getting into mudslinging

Your welcome.... no reason for mudslinging, it's a debate and thats it, nothing I say on here will change the world. The whole reason for this site is to talk to others, trade ideas, etc. Besides, if everybody agreed on here, these threads would be boring!!

Quoting Charger (Reply 25):
With everything going on in the world today this is what we have to worry about?

Illegal immigration is a bigger deal to me.
:evil:
 
BCAInfoSys
Posts: 2617
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 11:09 pm

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:49 am

I found the original paper. Here's a link to the Word document complete with formatting and graphs.

Please, everyone: take a moment to read it and comment on it in regards to this debate.

http://cc.usu.edu/~stephenh/DefenseOfMarriageResearchPaper.doc
Militant Agnostic - I don't know and you don't either.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:00 am

Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 27):
So following your logic:

- Women should be the personal property of their husbands
- Women should not be allowed to vote
- Racial minorities should not be allowed to vote
- Racial minorities should not be allowed to marry outside of their race

Yeah.. that's solid logic.

I said nothing of the sort. You are attempting to box me in and throwing out distracting ideas in an attempt to divert attention from the fact that you are doing exactly what you said someone else should not do. You said, "You have no right to force your beliefs on others". I did not disagree with you. But you have spent several posts attempting to assert that your ideas are correct and others are wrong. Or, in effect, force your ideas. The exerpt you chose from your paper makes degrading remarks about those who hold ideas different from yours. Go back and read my first post in this thread and see if it is consistant with any of the accusations you leveled. I am simply stating you are guilty of the same type in intolerance you accuse others of.
Proud OOTSK member
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:04 am

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 2):
Interesting way to go, especially in an emotionally charged issue like this. Basically saying they deserve the same rights, but leaving it up to the Legislature to define how its implemented. Be interesting to see how they handle it.

Congratulations to the NJ Supreme Court for recognizing that it is up to the legislature to write laws, not the courts, and for affirming that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
searpqx
Posts: 4173
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 10:36 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:05 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 4):
But they did it in the way that most conservatives are OK with. Yes, in principle they should have the same priviledges, but it is the elected legislature which must write the law.



Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 6):
We should all just simply say that civil unions is a good compromise solution and then move on.

As a practical matter, I tend to agree with you both. My heart and emotions would like to see one civil status that applies to hetero and homo couples, but the realistic part of me realizes, that at least for now, fully equal civil unions is a livable compromise. But one thing to keep in mind for those conservatives who say separate but equal is ok (because that's what it is folks, no matter how you slice it), until the various state constitutional amendments that ban not only same sex marriage but "a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage (Ohio wording)" are repealed, it's not equal.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 9):
But it does... I am opposed to gay marriage on several levels.

You may not like it, but it doesn't affect you. Big difference.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 11):
Any change in the laws must allow for conscious refusal or exemptions as to the cirucmstances as I noted above.

Churches are already allowed to say who the will and won't marry, and nothing will change on that front, so this doesn't apply to them. In all other areas, where a religious or related organization has chosen to enter the public realm to provide service, they are no more allowed to discriminate because someone is gay than if they were black or an atheist.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 13):
I don't know of a single conservative that objects to a civil union between gays, with all the tax breaks and everything that heterosexual couples get.

Go back and read the recently approved State Constitutional Amendments. Many of them specifically prohibit ANY recognition of ANY same sex relationship, in ANY manner.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 19):
Agree. But many opponents of gay marriage (at least the ones who are in power) want to ban gay marriage and any other alliances that closely approximate it.

 checkmark  see above

Quoting Nkops (Reply 23):
Tolerance and acceptance is not acceptable when it sacrifices your belief system.

Sorry, if that were the case, much of the south would still be segregated, and inter-racial marriages would still be against the law.
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
 
Boeing744
Posts: 1735
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:27 pm

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:26 am

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 21):
Yeah, because its not like its their job to make laws! You and Gilligan need to realize state referendums don't make U.S. Constitutional amendments, which it will eventually come down to. First, its that the judiciary should not be making the laws, and now its the legislative body that shouldn't be making the laws!! Its blatantly obvious that you have no regard for the proper means to go about this measure, only the most favorable means to come to your desirable outcome. If the general public was tilted for the most part in the other direction, I know you sure wouldn't be all 'let the citizens decide!!!'. Give me a break.

 checkmark 

It is the opposite situation here in Canada. Harper's Conservative gov't is trying to reopen the marriage debate, but you don't hear them calling for a referendum, because the majority of Canadians support equal marriage. Of course, the majority of MP's in parliament also support equal marriage, so they're not getting too far.  Wink
 
Boeing744
Posts: 1735
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:27 pm

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:29 am

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 32):
Quoting Gilligan (Reply 9):
But it does... I am opposed to gay marriage on several levels.

You may not like it, but it doesn't affect you. Big difference.

Exactly. You're not getting forced to marry another man, nor are your rights to marry a woman taken away.
 
BCAInfoSys
Posts: 2617
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 11:09 pm

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:31 am

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 30):
The exerpt you chose from your paper makes degrading remarks about those who hold ideas different from yours.

Yes, I took a jab at religion. Ask yourself, who else truly benefits by marginalizing and excluding a segment of our population?

When discrimination based on a group's morals are allowed to dictate policy for an entire nation (where they are many varied sets of morals), then most everyone ultimately loses. The beliefs of a few should not and cannot be allowed to dictate to everyone/the rest of us.
Militant Agnostic - I don't know and you don't either.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:40 am

Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 35):
The beliefs of a few should not and cannot be allowed to dictate to everyone/the rest of us.

This is also an interesting arguement, since homosexuals wishing to marry are a minority. If I dug up a few polls showing that the majority of the country was opposed to gay marriage, would you change your stance? Looks like another case of pot, kettle, black.

This is a case where government is in over its head. Although I do not support gay marriage, I also do not support the idea of a theocracy. We are just going to legislate and litigate our way into a huge, complicated, expensive mess. Hence the idea (which I cannot claim to be the originator of) that we do away with the legal concept of marriage.
Proud OOTSK member
 
Boeing744
Posts: 1735
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:27 pm

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:43 am

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 36):
If I dug up a few polls showing that the majority of the country was opposed to gay marriage, would you change your stance? Looks like another case of pot, kettle, black.

Well, that would be the same case with slavery, racial seregation, women's suffrage, etc. back when those were hot issues. Why is this issue any different?
 
BCAInfoSys
Posts: 2617
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 11:09 pm

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:48 am

Quoting Boeing744 (Reply 37):
Quoting Lowrider (Reply 36):
If I dug up a few polls showing that the majority of the country was opposed to gay marriage, would you change your stance? Looks like another case of pot, kettle, black.

Well, that would be the same case with slavery, racial seregation, women's suffrage, etc. back when those were hot issues. Why is this issue any different?

 checkmark 

Look at what I said before. when we have two differing points of view; a reasonable country must always side with the path which allows for the most freedom of choice, liberty, and equality. Here it's a very clear case which follows this path.

What are all of you trying to defend marriage "from"? How does Joe & Jack getting married going to threaten your marriage in any way, shape, or form? Thought not.
Militant Agnostic - I don't know and you don't either.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:50 am

Quoting Boeing744 (Reply 37):
Well, that would be the same case with slavery, racial seregation, women's suffrage, etc. back when those were hot issues. Why is this issue any different?

It's not, but he was making the case that a religious minority is opposing the majority with thier beliefs. I was simply making the point that the same could be said for homosexual marriage. I also wanted to know what sort of evidence would make him change his mind.
Proud OOTSK member
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:50 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 13):
One is the traditional marriage, which is a promise to each other and God, and the other is the civil union where the state recognizes two people wanting to live together permenantly.

I guess to me it doesnt matter what you call it. We are talking about two people who are in love and intimate with each other,based around the formation of a family, want to be together permanantly, and want the same right afforded to everyone who has decided to enter that sort of relationship. As the building block for society, ancient and modern.
Sure you cant marry your sister, there is good reason for that, if you dont know those reasons, drive through Kentucky sometime...this ultimately comes down to a civil rights issue. I am a straight guy, but how is it that governments where one of the founding principals is a separation of church and state can ban this. In AK I am ashamed we have a gay marriage ban as a constitutional amendment. Just because the religious right in this country doesnt agree with it, doesnt mean we all need to be held hostage by it.
Gay marraige or civil unions dont infringe on the rights of straight people, doesnt make thier commitment to thier partner any less. What it does allow is gay people to ultimately be happy(or miserable depending on how you see it) We have the need for literally thousands of foster/adoptive parents in this country and millions world wide. I would rather have a kid living with a gay couple happily than a straight couple who beats each other or otherwise dont want thier kid.
I cant believe the pro-life folks havent joined the band wagon on this one, perfect place to dump off all these unwanted kids, because once again they feel the need to pick and choose what one can do with their own bodies.
 
Basas
Posts: 216
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 11:16 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:09 am

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 19):
Agree. But many opponents of gay marriage (at least the ones who are in power) want to ban gay marriage and any other alliances that closely approximate it.

Yes, many of us do.

Quoting Boeing744 (Reply 33):
because the majority of Canadians support equal marriage

I think the vote would be much closer than you think...

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 13):
Marriage is a tradition that has been around for 10,000 years or more, and you can't just throw it on its ear without getting people very upset.

Exactly.  bigthumbsup 

[Edited 2006-10-26 02:09:49]
 
ShakeZulaNJ
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:37 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:41 am

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 9):
But it does... I am opposed to gay marriage on several levels.

How exactly does this impact you? Furthermore, why are you opposed to it? Is it the marriage part? Or do you just consider gays to be second class citizens and not deserving of the same protections and rights that everyone else enjoys? Do elaborate for us.

What business do you have telling us in New Jersey what to do? Furthering that, what right do you have telling anyone else what they can and can not do?

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 9):
Where in the Constitution does it say that just because you decide to sleep with someone of the same sex that you are automaticaly granted the right to be married to that person? Meanwhile, the concept of marraige, a union between a man and woman, with at least one of the purposes being pro creation, stretches back to the very begining of civilasation without any regard to religion.

It's called the 14th amendment. Yes, I know those amendments can be annoying to some people, but they are there for a reason. Every citizen in this country is entitled to the same protections and rights as everyone else. And for heterosexuals to be allowed to enjoy certain rights and not homosexuals is unequal.

And bull shit on your whole "the reason people marry is to have kids." I know plenty of straight married couples that CHOOSE not to have kids. Or are they required to have kids now under your point of view?
It's not bird strike, it's engine suck...
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:44 am

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 19):
Then you must not know too many conservatives.

I know plenty, but none of them are religious bible-thumpers, who are your main opposition.

Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 20):
You have no right to force your beliefs on to others. Whatever happened to tolerance and acceptance?

It is the Gay Rights people who are trying to force their beliefs on us. Our beliefs have been around for a lot longer than Gay Rights.

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 32):
Go back and read the recently approved State Constitutional Amendments. Many of them specifically prohibit ANY recognition of ANY same sex relationship, in ANY manner.

You have conservatives and then you have the bible-thumpers. I'm not one of them, nor do I have any interest in associating with them - Anyone who mentions Jesus more than 3 times per minute, I have no use for. While a bible-thumper might object to any rights to gays, I'm not one of them. I'm fine with Gay Rights, all I ask is that you don't call it marriage.

Believe it or not, I'm a moderate on the issue, and have proposed a reasonable compromise (Effective equal rights, just change the name). The extremists are those who want Gay Marriage and the bible-thumpers, because they are not willing to compromise.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11803
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:44 am

Quoting Nkops (Reply 23):
Tolerance and acceptance is not acceptable when it sacrifices your belief system.

Sorry dude, but that makes a whole lotta nonsense. Firstly, one does not have to sacrifice one's belief system simply due to someone else wishing to exercise different beliefs. Secondly, if by "sacrificing [one's] belief system," you mean allowing others to believe differently and act upon their different beliefs, then your belief system is a lost cause, as you have already sacrificed it millions of times over.

If you feel that by allowing gays to marry, you are forced to "sacrifice your belief system," then I'd imagine your belief system is not grounded very firmly.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 36):
This is a case where government is in over its head.

I may not agree with all your views on this matter, but I'm pretty damn sure you just nailed the gist of it.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 36):
Hence the idea (which I cannot claim to be the originator of) that we do away with the legal concept of marriage.

I'm a strong supporter of "civil unions for all, marriage for none" as far as the government is concerned.

I tend to get somewhat heated when I think about or discuss the issue of gay marriage. So every now and then, I have to force myself to take a step back and look at the subject about which we're arguing:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 13):
But we just don't want it to be called marriage.

Well, there are 208,827,064,576 other possible combinations of 8 letters. Let's use one of them! There are even 1,679,616 other possible combinations using the exact same 8 letters!

I'd say it's time for the government to exercise some creative powers and pick a new word to use.

~Vik
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:49 am

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 32):
As a practical matter, I tend to agree with you both. My heart and emotions would like to see one civil status that applies to hetero and homo couples, but the realistic part of me realizes, that at least for now, fully equal civil unions is a livable compromise. But one thing to keep in mind for those conservatives who say separate but equal is ok (because that's what it is folks, no matter how you slice it), until the various state constitutional amendments that ban not only same sex marriage but "a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage (Ohio wording)" are repealed, it's not equal.

What I find amusing about all the angst emanating from opponents to same sex marriage is that before long, civil unions will no longer be separate but equal - they will have the same legal effect as marriage.

Take Connecticut for example. Couples in a civil union there have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law that are granted to spouses in a marriage in categories such as state and municipal taxation, family leave benefits, hospital visitation and notification, state public assistance benefits, court privileges and others. However, they aren't recognized under federal law and the rights they afford aren't transferable to most other states. Also, while the law provides for group health and other benefits for government employees, they are not mandated of private sector employers.

Before long, there will be no difference between "marriage" and "civil union."
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
kiramakora
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:00 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:53 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 12):
A gay person in the US has the same marriage rights that I have, no different.

AndesSMF: You really believe this?
 
BCAInfoSys
Posts: 2617
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 11:09 pm

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:59 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 43):
I'm fine with Gay Rights, all I ask is that you don't call it marriage.

First of all, what does it matter what it's called? And why shouldn't gay unions be exactly equal those of heterosexual unions? Take Loving v. Virginia (1967) as the perfect example:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. (Sec. II, Par. 2)

Substitute the concept of race with chosen sexuality and I think we have the perfect basis on which to start overturning the moralistic "Defense of Marriage" laws.
Militant Agnostic - I don't know and you don't either.
 
searpqx
Posts: 4173
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 10:36 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:01 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 43):
It is the Gay Rights people who are trying to force their beliefs on us. Our beliefs have been around for a lot longer than Gay Rights.

I was pretty much with you, right up until this statement. No arguing that there are some extremists in the gay rights movement who do fit this (just like you disassociate yourself with the extreme religious right), but the majority fighting for gay rights are not about forcing beliefs on anybody. People are free to believe what they want, but they're not free to treat us as second class citizens because morally they don't approve of same sex relationships. We're simply asking to be treated the same as everyone else.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 45):
What I find amusing about all the angst emanating from opponents to same sex marriage is that before long, civil unions will no longer be separate but equal - they will have the same legal effect as marriage.

Eventually I think that's how it will evolve. Civil 'marriage' will fade and become supplanted by civil-unions. But in the meantime there will be plenty of angst from both sides. And, as you noted, I will have to be careful what state I'm in as to what rights are afforded to my partner and myself.
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
 
TWFirst
Posts: 5752
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 5:30 am

RE: NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions

Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:13 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 12):
Not at all. Even us heterosexuals in the US have accepted restrictions on our right to marriage, I cannot marry my sister, someone underage, or additional women if I felt like it. A gay person in the US has the same marriage rights that I have, no different. You would end this by allowing civil unions.

Yes there are restrictions, but discrimination based on gender is not allowed by law, and gender is the ONLY difference between an opposite sex couple and same sex couple.

Quoting Nkops (Reply 18):
But it does, its against my beliefs, therefore it affects me.

NO. If you are not the person being denied rights and benefits based on your gender, then it does NOT affect you. Your beliefs happen to be against my beliefs, but that does not mean I can deny you legal benefits.


BOTTOM LINE FOLKS.... THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS ISSUE...you cannot bestow a collection of legal benefits to one set of adult, non-related citizens, but deny those benefits to another set of adult, non-related citizens. That is what this is all about. The end.
An unexamined life isn't worth living.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests