quote: The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the state's constitution gives gay and lesbian couples all the rights of married heterosexual couples.
But the court left it to the state legislature to decide what to call the relationship.
It gave lawmakers 180 days to either include gay and lesbian couples in the state's existing marriage laws or grant those rights under the title civil unions.
quote: In its 4-3 ruling, the New Jersey court said, "The issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people."
Lawyers for the seven New Jersey gay and lesbian couples in the case had argued that the New Jersey Constitution's guarantee of liberty and equality allows them to marry.
The plaintiffs' lawyers said that for gay and lesbian couples to have true equality the institution must bear the same name.
quote: They worry that gay couples from around the country will come to the state, create unions and go back and challenge their home state laws.
"This is a repeat of what happened in Vermont," said Matt Daniels of Alliance for Marriage, which supports a federal constitutional amendment barring marriages between people of the same sex.
"They took the future of marriage out of the hands of the people of New Jersey. They are holding a gun to the head of the legislature of New Jersey and saying pick between two bullets -- one that allows civil unions and one that allows marriage."
47 more to go!
I hope they do get married there then go home and try to challenge the state laws there. I also hope that the legislature makes the same decision Vermont did and they choose to call it a civil union.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: "The issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people."
I've been saying for years that religious people who wanted to protect the sanctity of the traditional marriage, needed to get behind civil unions.
The rights issue is very compelling to most people who knows a non-traditional family. Unless the issues are separated, the people who support the value of traditional marriage will loose.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I would love to see (and I realize this would turn a lot of legal precedent on its head) would be civil unions for all couples which are performed in courthouses, by a judge, and guarantee tax stuff, power of attorney, custody of children, etc.: The governmental equal rights. This would be for same sex and heterosexual couples.
Then, I would like to see marriage be a religious thing - so if the Unitarians are ok with same sex marriages, cool, but if Catholics or Mormons are not okay with it, alright, etc. So ceremonies could be performed or not based on religious beliefs, but everyone would be able to see their partners when they're dying of cancer, get tax benefits, medical, so on. WITHOUT making people who really do object to it for whatever reason feel that it's being crammed down their throats. *shrug* Thoughts?
I just think the rights section of it should be separate from the religious objections or lack there of.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you Samarkand. If a church, temple, etc doesn't want to marry people, fine. But leave the legal things/rights to the government.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samarkand: What I would love to see (and I realize this would turn a lot of legal precedent on its head) would be civil unions for all couples which are performed in courthouses, by a judge, and guarantee tax stuff, power of attorney, custody of children, etc.: The governmental equal rights. This would be for same sex and heterosexual couples.
Then, I would like to see marriage be a religious thing - so if the Unitarians are ok with same sex marriages, cool, but if Catholics or Mormons are not okay with it, alright, etc. So ceremonies could be performed or not based on religious beliefs, but everyone would be able to see their partners when they're dying of cancer, get tax benefits, medical, so on. WITHOUT making people who really do object to it for whatever reason feel that it's being crammed down their throats. *shrug* Thoughts?
I just think the rights section of it should be separate from the religious objections or lack there of.
This is what I've been arguing for since the mid 1990s. It doesn't seem to be gaining much ground, but to me it is the only just and ethical approach.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is good. I'm glad the court is giving the legislature a choice, maybe that will help this go down smoother for people who oppose gay marriage.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
While I'm psyched about the ruling, and happy for the gay folks of New Jersey, I'm suddenly a little worried (well, a little more worried) about those midterm elections. The last thing the Democrats need right now is for gay marriage to become the Big Issue a week and a half before election day.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a state issue at the moment, not federal. So long as it stays that way all by itself, and assuming Republicans don't go on a gay bashing tear, I don't think NJ can change the election with less than two weeks to go.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't they realize that their society is going to fall apart just like Massachuesetts did? I mean, if the people in NJ don't watch out and keep attacking marriage like this, they might move from the #3 spot, overtake MA and become the state with the lowest divorce rate in the country. Don't they know they should be following the example of states that value marriage like Alabama(44), Tennessee(48), Oklahoma(49), Arkansas(50)?
Considering how gay-friendly Philly has positioned itself as, I bet we're trying to figure out how we can get in on that action. It's too bad that most of the rest of our state(5) is basically Kentucky(40).
posted
Samarkand - that's exactly what they do in Germany, and I've always thought it a wonderful idea. Couples typically have a civil ceremony the day or two before their church marriage - it's a more casual type of celebration, with close friends and family, then there's a big, formal affair a few days later for everyone.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: What I would love to see (and I realize this would turn a lot of legal precedent on its head) would be civil unions for all couples which are performed in courthouses, by a judge, and guarantee tax stuff, power of attorney, custody of children, etc.: The governmental equal rights. This would be for same sex and heterosexual couples.
Then, I would like to see marriage be a religious thing - so if the Unitarians are ok with same sex marriages, cool, but if Catholics or Mormons are not okay with it, alright, etc. So ceremonies could be performed or not based on religious beliefs, but everyone would be able to see their partners when they're dying of cancer, get tax benefits, medical, so on. WITHOUT making people who really do object to it for whatever reason feel that it's being crammed down their throats. *shrug* Thoughts?
I just think the rights section of it should be separate from the religious objections or lack there of.
quote: This is what I've been arguing for since the mid 1990s. It doesn't seem to be gaining much ground, but to me it is the only just and ethical approach.
I hope you're not surprised at the resistance to your ideas, Rabbit. Considering our beliefs about the importance of heterosexual marriage and in light of recent statements by the First Pres/Quorum of the Twelve, I'd think resistance to homosexual marriage/unions by Mormons would be completely logical.
In terms of Mormon theology, there is no option for eternal homosexual unions. In terms of political opposition to it, it's like asking us to support legalization of casino gambling or drugs-- there is cultural and theological inertia that you simply cannot overcome with secular arguments.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, the argument that civil unions don't equal marriage isn't one that you think holds a lot of water?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck-- it's a duck. I'm not entirely certain what having two terms for 'marriage' is supposed to do, other than more firmly establish a cultural divide between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say that, though I support the use of civil unions by the state, I agree with you about civil unions just being marriage under a different name, but other people seem to put a lot of stock in the fact that the state letting gay people call their unions 'marriage' is what cheapens the institution of marriage rather than the state sanctioning civil unions for gay people.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the 'institution of marriage' is cheapened by allowing two men to marry.
In Italy, it's expected that men will cheat on their wives. Adultery is frowned upon, but there is a cultural tolerance for it that is unheard of in the US. THAT cheapens marriage.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I have little patience for people who object to gay marriage on religious grounds. For Pete's sake! If you think that gay marriage is a violation of your religious beliefs, then don't do it. If you want me to follow your religious beliefs, then you can try to convert me. But it is not the American Way to make people adhere to your religious tenets.
My two cents. You are, of course, free to disagree. You'd be dead wrong, but that's your choice.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: I have little patience for people who object to gay marriage on religious grounds. For Pete's sake! If you think that gay marriage is a violation of your religious beliefs, then don't do it. If you want me to follow your religious beliefs, then you can try to convert me. But it is not the American Way to make people adhere to your religious tenets.
I totally agree! Although I would prefer no one try to convert me, heh.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kojabu: I agree with you Samarkand. If a church, temple, etc doesn't want to marry people, fine. But leave the legal things/rights to the government.
Totally. And bravo to NJ for handling this intelligently.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with voting one's faith is that other people have a different faith than you. If you promote the idea that one should codify their faith into law then before long we're living under the tenents of the faith with the most votes. Which isn't that awful right now while we're mostly christian. It only really hurts people like me and people who want to do business on sunday.
But the demographics of this country are changing. Would you be so comfortable with the concept of an islamic majority (for instance) voting their faith? Would you see your wife and daughters in a burka and confined to their home for the sake of another man's faith in Allah?
As for civil unions... I think that's a positive first step, so long as we don't end up with seperate but equal. If all civil marriages are called "civil unions" that's fine. If they're all called Marriage, that's fine. But don't call them two different things and don't require the churches to marry two people they don't want to marry be they gay, interracial, interfaith, what have you.
quote:Would you be so comfortable with the concept of an islamic majority (for instance) voting their faith? Would you see your wife and daughters in a burka and confined to their home for the sake of another man's faith in Allah?
Comfortable? No. I'd use whatever civil action available to change the law, the same way homosexuals are doing right now.
Note: I am not aruging against homosexuals' rights to try and change the law.
I don't see how speculative hardship should alter my adherence to what I see as right.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see how speculative hardship should alter my adherence to what I see as right
Becuase in adhereing to what you see as right, you are causing that hardship to many others. You're hurting people.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone needs to dobie this thread title before I splode. I would but I'm pretty sure I'm over my quota for threads on the first page.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott: You wouldn't be a confederate to anything. You'd still have the right to try to convert people.
As for what I expect.. Well, there's what you expect and what you Hope for... Just that most of the time, Hope yells "PSYCH!" and then rolls on the floor laughing at you.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
God bless the people of New Jersey. It will be a slow process, but the rest of the nation will do the right thing one day and recognize these unions.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, look. A thread where I agree with everything Scott R has said. We haven't had one of those for a while.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scott: You wouldn't be a confederate to anything. You'd still have the right to try to convert people.
I believe God does not want civil unions/homosexual marriages to be legitimized. If I vote for them TO be legitimized, I'm confederate.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe God does not want civil unions/homosexual marriages to be legitimized. If I vote for them TO be legitimized, I'm confederate.
We're not asking for you to vote for them. Simply to abstain and not actively vote against them. To simply not bring your religion into politics, to maintain a separation of church and state. Practice banning of civil unions in your church all you want, but don't try and actively write that ban into law.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:We're not asking for you to vote for them. Simply to abstain and not actively vote against them. To simply not bring your religion into politics, to maintain a separation of church and state.
Still confederate, Alcon.
:THORNY ANALOGY FOLLOWS:
It's like going out to a party with a buddy who's a recovering alcoholic. I see someone hand him a drink, and he sits there and stares at it. I can either go up and try to talk him out of drinking the drink, do nothing that affects the situation, or go up and encourage him to take the drink.
Only one of those actions is moral, IMO.
DISCLAIMER:
I'm not comparing homosexuals to drunks. I'm comparing my feelings about voting/not voting on this particular topic to me being at a party with a recovering alcoholic, and perhaps being complicit in his return to alcoholism.
The question was abou me and my feelings, after all...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that Scott is the kinda attitude that led to the creation of the United States. The kinda attitude that made the founding fathers write separation of church and state into law.
Because when people start trying to legislate their religious beliefs like this it can only lead to very very bad stuff.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The more society changes, the more it stays the same.
The same exact arguments Scott is making in this thread I can easily see someone arguing for keeping interracial marriages illegal fifty-seventy years ago.
In fact, here is the judge's decision in Loving vs. Virginia (1958):
quote:"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
He judged in favor of keeping interracial marriages illegal in Virginia.
(Edit: These laws, called anti-miscegenation laws, were in fact legislated based on the belief that God didn't want the races to mix in the first place.)
I don't think that this judge's opinion is any more valid than Scott's or the rest of folks who are opposed to homosexual marriage for religious reasons. Pretending to know God's opinion on a subject and using this made up opinion for restricting the rights of others always looks silly through the lens of history.
I think history will judge the two situations pretty much the same way. I already do.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: We're not asking for you to vote for them. Simply to abstain and not actively vote against them. To simply not bring your religion into politics, to maintain a separation of church and state. Practice banning of civil unions in your church all you want, but don't try and actively write that ban into law.
Wow, so now "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" that became seperation of church and state now becomes asking a private individual citizen to abstain from voting on issues influenced by his religious beliefs.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Not influenced by. Based solely on. The only argument for banning gay marrige is that "it's against God's will". That is voting religion into law.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. It's allowing religious convictions to influence individual decisions on how to vote. Nothing illegal in that. Not any more than if people choose to vote for a certain individual because they think he's handsome.
You may think the choices are foolish, but they are certainly not illegal.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
'Cause, you know, we Christians are all about love and acceptance.
