New Jersey court recognizes

[Satty]

Linkypoo

TRENTON, New Jersey (CNN) -- In a decision likely to stoke the contentious election-year debate over same-sex marriage, the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that state lawmakers must provide the rights and benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

The high court on Wednesday gave legislators six months to either change state marriage laws to include same-sex couples, or come up with another mechanism, such as civil unions, that would provide the same protections and benefits.

The court's vote was 4-to-3. But the ruling was more strongly in favor of same-sex marriage than that split would indicate. The three dissenting justices argued the court should have extended full marriage rights to homosexuals, without kicking the issue back to legislators.

Advocates of same-sex marriage hailed the decision, a respite from many defeats this year in courts nationwide.

"That is wonderful news," said Cindy Meneghin, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit by seven same-sex couples that prompted Wednesday's decision. "We can only hope that that means marriage, because that is the only way they can give us full equality." (Watch a couple say why they want to call their 32-year relationship marriage -- 2:01 Video)

Garden State Equality, a gay rights group, announced that three state legislators plan to introduce a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. In an e-mail to supporters, the chairman of the group, Steven Goldstein, vowed that only "over our dead bodies will we settle for less than 100 percent marriage equality."

Gay marriage opponents promise to fight

Those angered by the ruling predicted it will reinvigorate the fight in Congress for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage nationwide.

"They took the future of marriage out of the hands of the people of New Jersey," said Matt Daniels of the Alliance for Marriage, which supports the amendment. "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."

Sen. Sam Brownback a leading social conservative in Congress, said the New Jersey decision "warrants swift, decisive action by Congress in the form of passage of the Marriage Protection Amendment."

"Huge social changes should be decided by the people and their elected representatives and should not be forced by the courts," the Kansas Republican said in a written statement.

The federal amendment, which President Bush supports, has stalled in Congress. It has so far failed to get the necessary two-thirds vote to be submitted to the states for ratification.

Opponents of same-sex marriage contend the New Jersey decision could have a national impact because the state imposes no residency requirements for people seeking marriage. In essence, it could open the door for gay and lesbian couples from other states to marry in New Jersey and challenge laws against same-sex marriage in their own states.

The gay marriage debate intensified in 2004 when Massachusetts became the first and only state to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry. The state does not allow nonresidents to marry there, however.

Precedent in Vermont

The decision mirrors the one made in 1999 by Vermont's highest court, which prompted its legislature to create civil unions for same-sex couples, with the same rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexuals. (Opinion -- pdfexternal link)

The New Jersey high court held that state laws prohibiting gay and lesbian couples from receiving the "financial and social benefits and privileges" of marriage violate the equal protection clause of the New Jersey Constitution and served no "legitimate governmental purpose."

Noting that New Jersey already prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, the high court said there was "no rational basis for giving gays and lesbians full civil rights as individuals while, on the other hand, giving them an incomplete set of rights when they enter into committed same-sex relationships."

The justices wrote: "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."

However, they stopped short of finding that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry.

The ruling said the court would not "speculate" on whether legislation creating civil unions identical to marriage would pass constitutional muster "and will not presume that a difference in name is of constitutional magnitude."

The justices also held that the state's domestic partnership law for same-sex couples, passed in 2004, is not an adequate substitute for marriage rights because it provides gay and lesbians with fewer benefits and rights and has more stringent requirements for establishing partnerships than for marrying.

A hot button election topic

The issue of gay marriage has roiled American politics for more than a decade and on November 7 voters in eight states will decide whether to amend their constitutions to ban gay and lesbian couples from marrying.

Same-sex marriage advocates have suffered five high-profile court losses since July, including decisions in the high courts of New York and Washington state upholding state laws prohibiting marriage for gay or lesbian couples.

State supreme courts in Nebraska and Georgia also upheld constitutional amendments outlawing same-sex marriage that had been struck down by lower courts.

And earlier this month, an appellate court in California upheld the constitutionality of state laws against same-sex marriage, a decision now being appealed to the California Supreme Court.

The court said the state's existing Domestic Partnership Act, similar to one adopted in several other states, including California, doesn't go far enough in protecting the rights of gay couples.

Episcopal pastors Mark Harris and Denis Winslow, plaintiffs in the New Jersey suit, now have one dream to fulfill: to join the countless heterosexual couples they've married.

"We see it as a civil right that we're denied," Winslow said. "Even though we pay first-class taxes, we are treated as second-class citizens.

"We don't have that freedom to exercise our relationship in a practical way, dare I say, spiritual way."

Go Jersey!

[FAPTurbo]

My country has had gay marriage, for like what, a year... and we haven't burned in the fires of hell yet... it's kinda chilly up here actually.

[ocnblu]

With so many steps back recently in other states, this is a glimmer of hope for a lot of people.

[avant1963]

For once I'm a little proud to be from Jersey. It's still a cop-out since the court stopped short of legalizing marriage like Mass.

[Camino LS6]

This change , and its ultimate acceptance are inevitable simply because it is just.

Those opposing it are just pissing into the wind.

[Cory Wolfe]

Yay.

[the_yellow_dart]

Wow, never expected this from any of the states yet. Surprised California isnt first as well.

[Drew Dowdell]

Doesn't matter to me what the state calls it as long as all the legal protections are the same. In my heart, I'm still married. The rest is just legal semantics.

[CARBIZ]

I am amazed that we have come this far, this soon. I remember when I was in highschool and Anita Bryant came up to (London, Ontario, I think) to make a speech and gay groups were going down by the busload to protest her. She was telling people how sick we were and we should be fired from jobs, etc.

WE'VE COME A LONG WAY, BABY.

At 15, I could never have dreamed of LEGALLY being able to marry my partner. I do agree: it is inevitable. If you listen to highschool kids of today, their outlooks and opinions are vastly different than my generations. (God, I feel old!) Once the old coots in Congress are all dead, things will change quicker.

In "enlightened" Canada, the last battle ground is whether the Churches should be protected from being forced to perform same-sex marriages or not. Already there has been a few cases where civil servants, paid for by our tax dollars, have been allowed to decline to marry a gay/lesbian couple.

Being an atheist, I could care less, but I do believe gay organizations are being less than honest when they sidestep this issue. Of course some militant couple will take this issue to the Supreme Court, too - eventually.

I am thrilled at how far we have come, but then IMO marriage is a failed institution anyway.

To quote Andrew McCarthy from the movie St. Elmo's Fire: "The concept of two people spending their lives together is a myth created in a time when you were lucky to live past the age of 30 for being eaten by a dinosaur!" (I hope that is right: it has been about 5 years since I've seen that amazing movie.)

[ohsnap]

I heard about this while watching Good Morning America today......big yay!!!

I wonder when VA will come around

[aaaantoine]

For those uninitiated, I am heterosexual, and I am a Christian.

I'm not of the belief that all homosexuals are going to Hell. Additionally, I understand that if you're not attracted to the opposite sex, that is a matter of biology, not choice.

I also feel that if two members of the same sex truly love each other, they should be allowed under the laws of the State to have the same rights as a heterosexual married couple.

Be glad that your rights have made it this far, as few Christian churches will officially recognize "gay marriage" without serious reinterpretation of certain Bible verses.

And on that note, a quick Google Search brought me to this site: http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/contents.html

Which then led me to this:

http://www.truthsetsfree.net/study.pdf

It may be of interest to Christians and Non-Christians alike. If you are gay and you have left Christianity due to condemnation, maybe this link can set you in the right direction. I glanced through it but have not read it yet. I am going to read into it later today, as a matter of curiosity.

[regfootball]

For those uninitiated, I am heterosexual, and I am a Christian.

I'm not of the belief that all homosexuals are going to Hell.  Additionally, I understand that if you're not attracted to the opposite sex, that is a matter of biology, not choice.

I also feel that if two members of the same sex truly love each other, they should be allowed under the laws of the State to have the same rights as a heterosexual married couple.

209054[/snapback]

First, I agree with all the above. but secondly, (and I'll get flamed) but my conviction here based upon what i believe is that the term 'marraige' is not a civil term. its a religion based term. the way I feel about this is let's allow civil unions for heterosexuals and homosexuals. But let's not confuse it with 'marraige'. We should wipe the term marraige from our legal terminology. I guess I am a fossil (and grew up catholic) but the purpose of marraige is not primarily for an end unto itself. Its not only for the recipricol pleasure of one person to another. it's for the creation of a family and a union with above. The purpose of love and affection for each other in a 'marraige' is to build a strong family bond into the creation of new people, having children, continuance of species. At this point you could diverge in many ways on whether that should be limited by biology on that idea or not. It would actually be good discussion, and each sector of each faith could choose to define the issue then based on that. So I am not saying what basis we should constitute a marraige in any denomination. But my belief is let's not apply the term of 'marraige' to a civil setting. I guess I just feel strong about how the terminology is applied.

OK, flame away. So then i ask, let's have polygamy too. Even if you should consider that a seaprate issue, why should our civil rights be restricted to union with one person? Sorry i disagree with the group here, but its my conviction. Its a difference in belief. Not any disrespect. I welcome challenging views. maybe you can change some of what i feel.

Edited October 26, 2006 by regfootball

[Drew Dowdell]

First, I agree with all the above.  but secondly, (and I'll get flamed) but my conviction here based upon what i believe is that the term 'marraige' is not a civil term.  its a religion based term.  the way I feel about this is let's allow civil unions for heterosexuals and homosexuals.  But let's not confuse it with 'marraige'.  We should wipe the term marraige from our legal terminology.  I guess I am a fossil (and grew up catholic) but the purpose of marraige is not primarily for an end unto itself.  Its not only for the recipricol pleasure of one person to another.  it's for the creation of a family and a union with above.  The purpose of love and affection for each other in a 'marraige' is to build a strong family bond into the creation of new people, having children, continuance of species.  At this point you could diverge in many ways on whether that should be limited by biology on that idea or not.  It would actually be good discussion, and each sector of each faith could choose to define the issue then based on that.  So I am not saying what basis we should constitute a marraige in any denomination.  But my belief is let's not apply the term of 'marraige' to a civil setting.  I guess I just feel strong about how the terminology is applied.

OK, flame away.  So then i ask, let's have polygamy too.  Even if you should consider that a seaprate issue, why should our civil rights be restricted to union with one person?  Sorry i disagree with the group here, but its my conviction.  Its a difference in belief.  Not any disrespect.  I welcome challenging views.  maybe you can change some of what i feel.

209069[/snapback]

As long as I have the same civil, legal rights as a heterosexual married couple, you can believe anything you want. I am still married in my heart and that's where it truly matters.

[regfootball]

and that's why I say I respect everyone's personal beliefs. i am even revisiting this constantly in my head and it can change over time. I don't have answers.

for me, a lot of it is how I grew up and the things I believe because of it. who knows what of any of it is 'right'.

My sister in law has told me I'm going to hell because my wedding wasn't in the 'proper church'. We have some friends that married at the courthouse, but then more or less got forced to redo it in the church or they were going to hell too.

So we all are in different places on this sort of stuff. Maybe the problem is the religious defintion of marraige.

Edited October 26, 2006 by regfootball

[CARBIZ]

I can understand the conflict between religious beliefs and much of what is happening in the modern world. We are seeing the throes of this in the Middle East where the status quo is being challenged and the old patriarchy is resisting this with every ounce of its being. (That is another topic!)

I also understand the deep feelings that gay relations or gay sexual relations bring to many people. As my mother said to me a long time ago: "Most of my friends can't handle their own sexual feelings, so how could they handle yours?"

I am of two minds about the nature versus nurture angle. Personally, if I could change tomorrow I wouldn't want to. Being gay has given me a unique perspective on the world and, paradoxically perhaps, shielded me from a lot of childhood crap that my sisters are going through now from our parents. If it proves to be biological, then will that get us sympathy or pity? If it is our "fault," then should be jailed, as once was the case? I don't have the answers, but I do know that there is much, much diversity in the world and we had all better learn to get along or we will all end up blowing ourselves to high hell!

And, reg, I respect your beliefs and am happy that you are at least willing to explore them and to keep an open mind about future developments. Too many people on both sides of this (and other) issues are too quick to make snap judgments and condemn the other!

[regfootball]

and that's a great post. Where I am at now with the religious component of this, I do believe that God/Jesus/whatever loves, not damns. Whatever persecutions we all bear relative to who we are is a factor of our imperfect sinful world. Nearly all of us, its our heart's desire to be good and perfect but we must bear the imperfection that does exist here. In the end we rise to some perfect world where we are loved all the same, and not judged on our earthly imperfections.

That is what and why i believe. We all need to believe in something.

I can understand the conflict between religious beliefs and much of what is happening in the modern world.  We are seeing the throes of this in the Middle East where the status quo is being challenged and the old patriarchy is resisting this with every ounce of its being.  (That is another topic!)

  I also understand the deep feelings that gay relations or gay sexual relations bring to many people.  As my mother said to me a long time ago: "Most of my friends can't handle their own sexual feelings, so how could they handle yours?"

  I am of two minds about the nature versus nurture angle.  Personally, if I could change tomorrow I wouldn't want to.  Being gay has given me a unique perspective on the world and, paradoxically perhaps, shielded me from a lot of childhood crap that my sisters are going through now from our parents.  If it proves to be biological, then will that get us sympathy or pity?  If it is our "fault," then should be jailed, as once was the case?  I don't have the answers, but I do know that there is much, much diversity in the world and we had all better learn to get along or we will all end up blowing ourselves to high hell!

  And, reg, I respect your beliefs and am happy that you are at least willing to explore them and to keep an open mind about future developments.  Too many people on both sides of this (and other) issues are too quick to make snap judgments and condemn the other!

209077[/snapback]

Edited October 26, 2006 by regfootball

[zhawk]

What a potential mess. OK, before any jumps on my case please read the full post.

I am talking about the New Jersey court, in effect, forcing the creation of legislation, not the marriage or civil unions of homosexual couples. With this ruling they have forced the legislature to create a law and that is not within their power. The courts are here to enforce and, if needed, interpet the law. The are not here to create new ones.

This battle in New Jersey may just get ugly with this ruling. The Congress may create a law with exactly the opposite results as retaliation. Think its not possible? Think again.

Sen. Sam Brownback a leading social conservative in Congress, said the New Jersey decision "warrants swift, decisive action by Congress in the form of passage of the Marriage Protection Amendment."

"Huge social changes should be decided by the people and their elected representatives and should not be forced by the courts," the Kansas Republican said in a written statement.

Sen Brownback's opinion may be a minority but NOONE likes being told what to do and our Congress is no exception.

As for my feelings on the issue itself. I am ambivilant about what to call the unions. I believe marriage is the union of a man and woman in the eyes of God. But, I see no logical reason, in our society today, to refuse to honor and respect the commitment that two loving consentual adults have made to each other, or to provide that couple with legal protections and benefits.

There does have to be a limit on how much we are willing to change the definitions though. And we have to be sure that we do not open this to horrendous abuse. I have heard of people wanting to remove the age of consent from our laws, or opening up the issue of polygamy again. I am NOT saying that those wanting this very basic right of marriage are for either of those ideas, just that the people for those ideas are waiting to see if they can use this issue for their own agenda.

For those of you hoping and praying for your love and rights to be honored, I wish you the best.

[Drew Dowdell]

What a potential mess. OK, before any jumps on my case please read the full post.

I am talking about the New Jersey court, in effect, forcing the creation of legislation, not the marriage or civil unions of homosexual couples. With this ruling they have forced the legislature to create a law and that is not within their power. The courts are here to enforce and, if needed, interpet the law. The are not here to create new ones.

209105[/snapback]

The Court gave the legislature the option of amending the current law <which is subject to the court's interpretation>, or provide an equal alternative.

The court found that the existing domestic partnerships law in NJ was a "back of the bus", "separate but not equal" law and therefor was unconstitutional. The legislature doesn't have to create any new legislations at all. Either they amend the existing marriage law to include homosexuals or they amend the existing domestic partnership law to be legally equal to the marriage law in everything but name.

The court is exactly within it's jurisdiction.

Edited October 26, 2006 by Oldsmoboi

[zhawk]

And what if the reaction is for the legislature to just remove the domestic partnership law from the books? That would also get rid of the unconstitutional law as well and the courts could do nothing about it.

The court should have stated that if the congress wanted to keep a law like this in the books that they needed to amend it or amend the marriage law.

Telling the legistlature that you must pass or amend a specific law or another one like it is outside of their jurisdiction. They have the responsibility to state whether or not the current law is constitutional or legal. They can then state that if there is to be a law like this it must fall within the framework of what is constitutional. The cannot order congress to amend the law.

This is a tricky area of the Separation of Powers Act that has been argued as long as its been on the books so I do not think that we are going to resolve it here. A lot of what you and I are disagreeing on here is based on interpretation and people who have studied this their entire careers can't agree.

BTW, what happens in 6 months if the legislature doesn't pass an amendment or the governor doesn't sign it?

[Drew Dowdell]

And what if the reaction is for the legislature to just remove the domestic partnership law from the books? That would also get rid of the unconstitutional law as well and the courts could do nothing about it.

The court should have stated that if the congress wanted to keep a law like this in the books that they needed to amend it or amend the marriage law.

Telling the legistlature that you must pass or amend a specific law or another one like it is outside of their jurisdiction. They have the responsibility to state whether or not  the current law is constitutional or legal. They can then state that if there is to be a law like this it must fall within the framework of what is constitutional. The cannot order congress to amend the law.

This is a tricky area of the Separation of Powers Act that has been argued as long as its been on the books so I do not think that we are going to resolve it here. A lot of what you and I are disagreeing on here is based on interpretation and people who have studied this their entire careers can't agree.

BTW, what happens in 6 months if the legislature doesn't pass an amendment or the governor doesn't sign it?

209118[/snapback]

What the court said was that there is no rational reason to restrict access to the civil legal protections of marriage to homosexual couples. The current marriage law is exclusionary. The domestic partnership law is inadaquate. So the court ordered the legislature to correct the inequality. Would you rather the court have struck down the existing marriage law entirely? Technically, they would be in their right to do so since they already found the law to be unconstitutional.

The Legislature has 4 options to correct the inequality:

1. Include homosexuals in the current marriage law.

2. Correct the domestic partnerships law to be equal to marriage law in everything but name.

3. Reduce the current marriage law to the same level as the current domestic partnership law. <highly unlikely>

4. Eliminate both the marriage law and domestic partnership law. <completely absurd>

As for not liking being told what to do, in cases of equality, when the majority is wrong, they're still wrong. George C. Wallace didn't like being told what to do either.

[tmp]

I believe marriage is the union of a man and woman in the eyes of God.

209105[/snapback]

And you are entitled, as is your church to that belief. That is why no-one is forcing your church to perform these cermonies.

It's not the government's role to protect the "sanctity" of marriage, it's the churches. Just as the Catholic church used to not recognise second marriage after a civil divorce, religion has to right to bless or not bless any relationship they see fit.

[Drew Dowdell]

This is a tricky area of the Separation of Powers Act that has been argued as long as its been on the books so I do not think that we are going to resolve it here. A lot of what you and I are disagreeing on here is based on interpretation and people who have studied this their entire careers can't agree.

209118[/snapback]

I think the reason the court took this route, the ordering of the legislature that you don't like, is so they didn't have to throw out the entire marriage law and domestic partnership law. They had the foresight to know the turmoil that would cause. They took this route rather than throw the existing marriage system into chaos for 6 months.

[zhawk]

I looks to me that the law they found unconstitutional was the 'domestic partnership ' law and not the marriage law. The marriage law wouldn't have to be thrown out at all because of this action.

It's the domestic partnership law, the new one, that has serious holes and issues. Please correct me if I am wrong. The problem was that the new law did not go far enough to protect people's rights. Am I correct on this? I think the courts want a useful and enforceable law on the books.

You stated 4 options. The congress legally has a 5th although I am sure the would not use it. Remove the domestic partnership law from the books and either start all over or do nothing after that. Many states still don't have any domestic partnership laws.

Now it could be that the actual decision the court sent down along with their instructions does cover everything you and I have been discussing and the news just condensed it. And there could be other things in there as well. But, please remember that whenever there are issues that blur the lines between what branch of the government does what it gets very tricky and sometimes ugly.

BTW, thanks for keeping very civil with me as we discussed what I know to be a volitile issue.

tmp - nice way to pull out a minor statement from my post. From what you stated then marriage is the providence of the church. If they are to 'protect the sanctity of marriage' and we are to have a separation of church and state, then that must be so.

I never said I was against this. I just stated my own personal belief.

[aaaantoine]

I mention this again because I just finished reading it and it's truly insightful.

http://www.truthsetsfree.net/study.pdf

If you are a Christian who condemns homosexuals and/or gay marriage, read this. If you are gay and were once a Christian but were forced to leave because of persecution, read this.

In summary, there is nothing in the Bible that forbids two men from loving each other in that sort of way.

...Although the clincher is, as with a man and a woman, marriage is still a prerequisite.

Hence the predicament doesn't change much, does it?

[Camino LS6]

I think that I can speak for all of the C&G staff in saying that we appreciate the civility with which this topic is being discussed. Well done all, stay on the high road.

[DetroitNut90]

I heard about this while watching Good Morning America today......big yay!!!

I wonder when VA will come around

209020[/snapback]

Same here...except in MD.

Good for you, New Jersey.

[razoredge]

and to think I have no desire to get "married" what so ever. I think its a bogus ideal. If you feel that you need the extra vows, commitments, rules and regulations to remain as one with someone your barking up the wrong tree in the first place. On the flip side I prefer to be free of most financial and estate obligations created by this little piece of paper. I believe this, whole heartedly, "we are not married and we are not divorced", that makes us so much better than all these married/now divorced couples. Marraige seems more like entertainment today.

The bible ? The old testiment states that a couple are as one when they consumate. That was the old way, no big invitational ceremony.....bring gifts, get drunk, dance, ect. ect. ect Then of course children would follow. Then somewhere in the new testiment is states that one will follow the laws of thier governing body. Somewhere in there, probably due to many paranoid/devil fearing Christian sectors we got into the couple needs to be legally married in the "eyes of the Lord" or they are sinners. But "the eyes of the Lord" fall back to the consumation seen in the old testiment, so thats a viscious circle.

Then theres that little chapter regarding Sodom and Gamora but who believes in fire, brimstone and turning to a pillor of salt ?

So what are all the benefits recieved by being legally married that everyone is all worked up over anyhow? Family health plans covering spouse are the only thing I can think of. What else ? File tax's jointly always seemed like a punishment to me. We have always been better off going separately.

[usonia]

for what it's worth...

http://www.marriageequality.org/meusa/fact...ml?1049-federal

[tmp]

I never said I was against this. I just stated my own personal belief.

209134[/snapback]

Nice way to get upset with someone who was agreeing with your right to have your own belief system.

I never wrote that marriage was only the provenance of the church; marriages are both perfomed by the state as well as being recognized by it. My point was that no one outside is trying to force any church to do so. If any church decides to change that policy, that is up to them.

[Paolino]

I'm just trying to stay out of this thread. This is a very touchy topic for me. I HATE having watched all of my friends get married and have these beautiful ceremonies, and know that my own family wouldn't be happy for me if I did the same, and the state wouldn't recognize the whole meaning behind it.

[Drew Dowdell]

I looks to me that the law they found unconstitutional was the 'domestic partnership ' law and not the marriage law. The marriage law wouldn't have to be thrown out at all because of this action. It's the domestic partnership law, the new one, that has serious holes and issues. Please correct me if I am wrong. The problem was that the new law did not go far enough to protect people's rights. Am I correct on this? I think the courts want a useful and enforceable law on the books.

The court found that the existing marriage law was unconstitutional because it unlawfully restricted marriages to heterosexual unions. At the same time they found the domestic partnership law to be inadequate in providing rights, privileges and protections to same sex couples. In the end, both laws failed under the equal protections clause of the NJ Constitution.

If the state court had thrown out the marriage law, they would have had to throw out the DP law as well. I think the reason the court took the actions they did is because they didn't want the existing system to be thrown into chaos while the legislature figured things out.

You stated 4 options. The congress legally has a 5th although I am sure the would not use it. Remove the domestic partnership law from the books and either start all over or do nothing after that. Many states still don't have any domestic partnership laws.

The legislature actually doesn't have that 5th option at all. They must somehow provide equal protections to same sex couples.

But, please remember that whenever there are issues that blur the lines between what branch of the government does what it gets very tricky and sometimes ugly.

The decision can be read here. link fixed

What I want to try to get across here is that this wasn't a court overstepping the lines. Issues of equality shouldn't be left up to a popular vote, but in this case, all the court said was the current laws are inadequate and that it is the legislatures job to remedy the situation. This decision was, by far, the sanest of all the court battles in this matter.

Edited October 27, 2006 by Oldsmoboi

[zhawk]

Ummm, the link you used Oldsmoboi, references an entirely different case. I am sure you didn't mean to reference a case on executing people.

But, in any case, I can see you checked way deep into this and thanks. From the news article, it looked like the DP law was the only one that had problems, if the court also found the marriage law to be unconstitutional now then that changes the whole picture.

In that case, you are entirely correct. Their decision was the sanest of all possible and eliminates that potential 5th option that I mentioned.

Please remember, I only saw the news article so, as I said, there could be (and it turns out, there was) a lot I didn't see that changed the legal picture. To that end, I apologize for jumping in with only half the information. Let's hope the next step for New Jersey is one or two well crafted, intelligent laws.

tmp-I wasn't and am not upset with you. Just pointed out that you decided to only comment on a minor point on my post. Please, let's not argue church and state. It never comes to a satisfactory conclusion. Cool?

[aaaantoine]

I hate to get too long-winded, but I have far too much to say on the matter:

Then somewhere in the new testiment is states that one will follow the laws of thier governing body.

209225[/snapback]

Quick Bible Excerpt (Mark 12:14-17, World English Bible):

When they had come, they asked him, "Teacher, we know that you are honest, and don't defer to anyone; for you aren't partial to anyone, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give?"

But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, "Why do you test me? Bring me a denarius, that I may see it." They brought it. He said to them, "Whose is this image and inscription?" They said to him, "Caesar's." Jesus answered them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." They marveled greatly at him.

Plain and simple, they were trying to nab Him on Tax Evasion.

The lesson: you shouldn't break the law or evade the taxes of your national government. The reasons:

1) It's inconsiderate to your fellow countrymen. By not paying taxes you don't fund any of the very important services that the country provides for your well-being. And breaking any law in general is immoral, as people may suffer as a result.

2) As punishment for breaking the law, you could very well get killed before your time. And even if you don't get killed, what good are you doing yourself and your God if you're trapped behind bars? You would be hurting yourself.

If the law is so bad that a Christian can't practice his faith in God, then he should probably try to leave to a different country, or at least protest the law peacefully.

The ban on Gay Marriage goes against the very freedoms this country was founded on, and is enforced strictly to appease the prejudicial.

The bible ? The old testiment states that a couple are as one when they consumate. That was the old way, no big invitational ceremony.....bring gifts, get drunk, dance, ect. ect. ect Then of course children would follow. . . . Somewhere in there, probably due to many paranoid/devil fearing Christian sectors we got into the couple needs to be legally married in the "eyes of the Lord" or they are sinners. But "the eyes of the Lord" fall back to the consumation seen in the old testiment, so thats a viscious circle.

209225[/snapback]

The ceremony is important to the marriage. The purpose of exchanging vows in ceremony is to remind you that you are committing yourself to your spouse. Also, if you have God-loving witnesses, they can help to enforce the marriage later on. It's a shame that the ceremony of marriage is denied to people who truly love each other.

If you're going to sleep with a woman, there is always a chance that you will impregnate her. And the marriage tells you: this is your wife; that is your child; you will now become a family. It's designed to keep men from leaving their wife to raise the child(ren) by herself, which is a terrible thing to do.

And how does this relate to the thread? Well,

A. Replace "wife" with "spouse".

B. While you might not always be able to impregnate your spouse, you can always adopt.

C. Keep in mind that - at least from the Protestant point of view - not all sex is for procreation. But regardless of religion, know that promiscuity, aside from trivializing human relationship, spreads disease.

Then theres that little chapter regarding Sodom and Gamora but who believes in fire, brimstone and turning to a pillor of salt ?

209225[/snapback]

As pointed out in the link I provided in my previous post, the terms "homosexual" and "Sodomite" were added in the English translations of the Bible, not as pure translation (because no such word existed in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic), but as an interpretation. It's prejudice, and the sooner it's done away with, the better.

The fundamental nature of the Sodomites was that they were rapists, not necessarily homosexuals. To put it another way, they weren't exactly kind, loving individuals. (If you fit into this category, you owe God a sincere apology. Like, right now.)

And finally, you can't prove that God did not turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt. It's a faith-based religion, after all.

[NDL]

And you are entitled, as is your church to that belief.  That is why no-one is forcing your church to perform these cermonies.

But that's precisely the problem.

If the State of New Jersey legalizes civil unions between people of the same sex, thus declaring for the participants of said unions, the same rights as those who are heterosexual and joined together legally, then I can see no conflict.

But if the State of New Jersey declares that people of the same sex are married, sooner or later, the church will be compelled, if not coerced, to follow suit. And this is simply wrong.

The shame of it is, that the homosexual community, once again, is being used as a political football between groups. My heart goes out to those within the homosexual community...

[Drew Dowdell]

Ummm, the link you used Oldsmoboi, references an entirely different case. I am sure you didn't mean to reference a case on executing people.

But, in any case, I can see you checked way deep into this and thanks. From the news article, it looked like the DP law was the only one that had problems, if the court also found the marriage law to be unconstitutional now then that changes the whole picture.

In that case, you are entirely correct. Their decision was the sanest of all possible and eliminates that potential 5th option that I mentioned.

209452[/snapback]

They found that the marriage law was only unconstitutional because the DP law did not make up for the inequity. Had the DP law been completely equal to the marriage law <as is the case in Vermont> the court would have likely ruled against the plaintiffs.

[Drew Dowdell]

But if the State of New Jersey declares that people of the same sex are married, sooner or later, the church will be compelled, if not coerced, to follow suit.  And this is simply wrong.

209471[/snapback]

I don't see that being the case at all. The Catholics can, and still do, deny people church weddings. Some of the Jewish faiths do it as well. No one has been forcing the churches to marry anyone they don't want to.

[NDL]

I don't see that being the case at all. The Catholics can, and still do, deny people church weddings. Some of the Jewish faiths do it as well.  No one has been forcing the churches to marry anyone they don't want to.

209476[/snapback]

I respectfully disagree. For absolutely anyone, can marry within the Catholic Church, if they convert to Catholicism. And absolutely anyone can convert to Catholicism, thus meeting the requirements necessary, to be married within the Church.

But since the Church requires that Marriages be between heterosexuals, that disqualifies homosexuals from marriage in the Church, for they cannot, under any circumstances, satisfy the requirements.

Two different arguments...

[razoredge]

wonder how Wolfs, Geese and Doves manage to bond for life without the Lord or a court of law.........

then try to imagine an Alfa Wolf and a.... ah never mind.

The whole thing doesnt really matter anyhow, its just background noise. After this is resolved it will move on to the next big thing which will be child adoption and raising.

[Camino LS6]

Just thought I'd throw this out there:

I see this decision as correcting a civil rights violation, an inequity exists in law simply due to prejudice and must therefore be corrected. It really is that simple, and for the politicians to waste time fighting such an obvious case of legal discrimination borders on criminal.

However, I would defend until the end of time the right of any religion to refuse to sanctify same sex unions as marriages in the eyes of that specific religion. There is a reason that the separation of church and state is critical to this country's well-being, and this issue is a textbook example. I take this position as someone who believes in fairness and the right of individuals and organizations to be self-determining. I am not partisan here as I am not part of the gay community, nor religious in any way. I do, however, believe in freedom - the kind that is real and tangible, not the lip service given the concept by politicians who promote the very opposite in freedom's name.

[Croc]

I respectfully disagree.  For absolutely anyone, can marry within the Catholic Church, if they convert to Catholicism.  And absolutely anyone can convert to Catholicism, thus meeting the requirements necessary, to be married within the Church.

209478[/snapback]

That's not true at all. My mother was married in a Catholic church THEN converted nearly 20 years later. Also, the Catholic Church tends to look down on divorcees.

[Croc]

However, I would defend until the end of time the right of any religion to refuse to sanctify same sex unions as marriages in the eyes of that specific religion. There is a reason that the separation of church and state is critical to this country's well-being, and this issue is a textbook example. I take this position as someone who believes in fairness and the right of individuals and organizations to be self-determining. I am not partisan here as I am not part of the gay community, nor religious in any way. I do, however, believe in freedom - the kind that is real and tangible, not the lip service given the concept by politicians who promote the very opposite in freedom's name.

209523[/snapback]

BINGO! My thoughts exactly...

[Drew Dowdell]

After this is resolved it will move on to the next big thing which will be child adoption and raising.

209498[/snapback]

Actually, in NJ's case. NJ was the first state to legalize joint gay adoption.

[razoredge]

Actually, in NJ's case. NJ was the first state to legalize joint gay adoption.

209649[/snapback]

Now that is 100% immoral, unnatural and wrong. If ya cant walk the walk you shouldnt be talkin the talk.

[CARBIZ]

On a totally side note here, a few years ago I was watching my (then) favorite TV show, Babylon 5 and they slipped something by that made me stand up and cheer.

For those of you who don't know, Babylon 5 is a Star Trek type SF show about a space station-type United Nations where all the different species meet for commerce and to settle their differences.

Anyway, in this particular episode, two main characters were slipping into Mars as under cover agents. Mars was trying to separate from Earth, etc. and was about to slip into civil war. So anyway, these two agents are on a shuttle, checking their I.D.s, etc. and discover they are going to Mars as a married couple.

They are both males.

With no fanfare and no social commentary that TV show accomplished more than Star Trek or Star Wars ever did in the decades that I watched them (as a kid.) The one character turns to the other and non-chalantly adds,"Well, I get the left side of the bed." And that was the end of that.

That is where I want to see this issue to end up. NO BIG DEAL. It does not matter if you are gay, straight, married or not. It is what inside that counts. It is what you bring to the table every day of your life.

Having gay issues for the sake of gay issues, having the Courts and politicians wasting so much time on this issue and the Churches - well, that is another matter.

If people weren't so busy minding each other's business, this would be a much better world to live in.

[NDL]

That's not true at all.  My mother was married in a Catholic church THEN converted nearly 20 years later.

That may, or may not, have been a rare exception. For one of my friends, a practicing Catholic, married someone of the Jewish faith, in an interfaith ceremony, by a Catholic Priest.

Yet I can think of three people, off the top-of-my-head, that had to convert to Catholicism before being married in the Church.

Perhaps the rules governing marriage covenants, differ between arch diocese...

Also, the Catholic Church tends to look down on divorcees.

209581[/snapback]

Depends on how much money you have...

[NDL]

However, I would defend until the end of time the right of any religion to refuse to sanctify same sex unions as marriages in the eyes of that specific religion. There is a reason that the separation of church and state is critical to this country's well-being, and this issue is a textbook example. I take this position as someone who believes in fairness and the right of individuals and organizations to be self-determining. I am not partisan here as I am not part of the gay community, nor religious in any way. I do, however, believe in freedom - the kind that is real and tangible, not the lip service given the concept by politicians who promote the very opposite in freedom's name.

209523[/snapback]

If you ever run for office, count on my vote ...

[NDL]

If the law is so bad that a Christian can't practice his faith in God, then he should probably try to leave to a different country, or at least protest the law peacefully.

Where do you propose a Christian move to?

[Drew Dowdell]

Now that is 100% immoral, unnatural and wrong. If ya cant walk the walk you shouldnt be talkin the talk.

209654[/snapback]

Do you say the same thing to infertile couples?

Gay parents, on average, put more effort into being parents than heterosexual parents do.

I'm not saying that gay parents make better parents than heterosexual ones, but similar to those infertile heterosexual couples, if you must make a huge legal, financial, and medical effort to even have the child in the first place, you make sure it's taken care of once you have it.

The number of gay parents is relatively small simply because of that effort. The number of unwilling heterosexual parents greatly weighs down the "good parent" average.

I can point you to any number of studies that show that the children of gay parents turn out to be boringly normal.

We've kept this discussion very civil Razor, please continue to do so.

[regfootball]

the thing that is important to remember why in some religions the religious basis of marraige is limited to man + woman is because that's how we are wired to produce new offspring, and like I stated before, the purpose of marraige at least in the Catholic background I was raised in is not for two people to be unto themselves, but to unify with God for probably the main purpose of creating offspring. So you could understand in that context why they would not consider homosexual couples to be able to marry.

I don't disagree that all sorts of couples are capable of parenting, and some who should be biologically wired to produce offspring can't, but i think this is the concept behind why lots of religions don't support 'marraige' for homosexuals...because the religious concept of marraige is not just two people...its the two people, the God, and the offspring production

[Drew Dowdell]

the thing that is important to remember why in some religions the religious basis of marraige is limited to man + woman is because that's how we are wired to produce new offspring, and like I stated before, the purpose of marraige at least in the Catholic background I was raised in is not for two people to be unto themselves, but to unify with God for probably the main purpose of creating offspring.  So you could understand in that context why they would not consider homosexual couples to be able to marry.

I don't disagree that all sorts of couples are capable of parenting, and some who should be biologically wired to produce offspring can't, but i think this is the concept behind why lots of religions don't support 'marraige' for homosexuals...because the religious concept of marraige is not just two people...its the two people, the God, and the offspring production

209699[/snapback]

I completely agree. Those who follow that faith are free to follow it. Where that becomes a problem is when people of faith try to force their faith onto others through civil law.