New Jersey court recognizes right to same-sex unions

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
DC,

I feel ill equiped to expain why, but somehow it seems logical that government should have some sort of marital law. I fully understand your argument that civil marriage should simply be abolished, but for reasons that are right now beyond my ability to verbalize, i disagree with it.
Actually, the point I was making was this: churches are free to make whatever rules they want regarding marriage (even at that, I feel that if they are exclusionary, they should lose tax-exempt status). The government is a different matter. If they cannot stomach the idea of providing equal protection under the law (Amendment 14) for EVERY tax-paying citizen who wants legal marital protections, then they should not be in the business of providing it to a priveleged few. All or none. I will wait for your views on why government should be in the marriage business before I make a few other points, but at this point in the debate (yes, we are on the same side but for different reasons, it seems) I will leave it at saying "the government wants it both ways, but is not entitled."
Since, however, every law maker that has made a stance against gay marriage has done so with some sort of religious slant
I still want my 1st Amendment protections.
In summary, i can see no reasonable explanation for denying gays access to the thousands of legal protections that are afforded by marriage. I am also very leery of "civil unions." If a civil union does indeed afford all of the same protections as marriage, why does it need a different name? I think the answer to that is simple: "if we don't call them marriages, we can change the rules on gay unions without changing the rules on straight unions." That doesn't sit well with me. Not one iota.
I think you really hit the nail on the head here, jbt. They want to leave the door open just enough to find ways to perpetuate state-sponsored bigotry, oppression, and unequal treatment.
 

joyboytoy79

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
3,686
Media
32
Likes
60
Points
193
Location
Washington, D.C. (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Het marriage stands a better chance of producing new taxpayers.

This is only true if both members a)WANT to have children and b) are ABLE to have children. As of yet, there are no laws that require couples to state their intent to reproduce, or submit to testing to ensure they are able. Until those laws are passed, i will consider this argument to be null.
 

joyboytoy79

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
3,686
Media
32
Likes
60
Points
193
Location
Washington, D.C. (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Actually, the point I was making was this: churches are free to make whatever rules they want regarding marriage (even at that, I feel that if they are exclusionary, they should lose tax-exempt status).
I agree. In fact, i will go one step further and say that i don't think ANY church should be tax-exempt. They are businesses. They should be treated as such.
The government is a different matter. If they cannot stomach the idea of providing equal protection under the law (Amendment 14) for EVERY tax-paying citizen who wants legal marital protections, then they should not be in the business of providing it to a priveleged few. All or none.
Not usually an "all or none" thinker, in this case i feel i am justifued in being so. Mostly because the constitution is meant to protect us from injustices, and it is certainly not just to extend benefits only to those you like.
I will wait for your views on why government should be in the marriage business before I make a few other points, but at this point in the debate (yes, we are on the same side but for different reasons, it seems) I will leave it at saying "the government wants it both ways, but is not entitled."
Go ahead and make those other points. I, for the life of me, cannot think of a solitary logical reason why married people should be afforded more legal protections than non-married people. I still feel as though it is somehow justifyable, but i can't explain that feeling. Logically, it makes no sense whatsoever. *shrug* For now, i'm going to just say that intellectually I agree with you, emotionally i'm unsure.
I still want my 1st Amendment protections.
Amen to that! According to the constitution, i am supposed to be free from the religious opression of others. So, why am i being opressed?
I think you really hit the nail on the head here, jbt. They want to leave the door open just enough to find ways to perpetuate state-sponsored bigotry, oppression, and unequal treatment.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Until everyone is afforded MARRIAGE rights, it is still unequal. Giving the "same benefits" under a "different name" is like having different legal protections for a "cat" versus "felis domesticus." I'm sorry for the really absurd analogy, but both concepts are really just as absurd.
 

Shelby

Experimental Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
2,129
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Location
in the internet
Until those laws are passed, i will consider this argument to be null.

So you're saying gays are just as likely to produce new taxpayers as hets. That's rich.

Btw, I wasn't arguing.

But as long as your at it maybe you should lobby for equal reproductive rights as well. That should prove interesting.
 

joyboytoy79

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
3,686
Media
32
Likes
60
Points
193
Location
Washington, D.C. (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
So you're saying gays are just as likely to produce new taxpayers as hets. That's rich.

Btw, I wasn't arguing.

But as long as your at it maybe you should lobby for equal reproductive rights as well. That should prove interesting.

Well, let's see. A lesbian couple has 2 women, theoretically making them twice as likely to produce children. In states where it is allowed, gay male couples adopt children as much as straight couples who either chose not to, or are unable to reproduce. So, yes, i'm saying gays are just as likely to produce (or in the very least rear) new taxpayers as are hets.
 

fortiesfun

Sexy Member
Joined
May 29, 2006
Posts
4,619
Media
0
Likes
77
Points
268
Location
California (United States)
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Traditions are long established customs. It has been, what, 2 generations since the mormons officially dropped polygamy?

Well, five since my great-great grandfather separated from a second wife and all her children as Utah became a state, but who's counting?
 

Shelby

Experimental Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
2,129
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Location
in the internet
Well, let's see. A lesbian couple has 2 women, theoretically making them twice as likely to produce children. In states where it is allowed, gay male couples adopt children as much as straight couples who either chose not to, or are unable to reproduce. So, yes, i'm saying gays are just as likely to produce (or in the very least rear) new taxpayers as are hets.

Well I'll be damned all to hell. Dude I'm not even opposed to gay marriage.

I made a simple (if somewhat tongue in cheek) statement. Hets stand a better chance of reproducing. Your political axe to grind has so consumed you that you deny simple logic. I'm not even going to bother explaining. It's too blatantly obvious.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Well I'll be damned all to hell. Dude I'm not even opposed to gay marriage.

I made a simple (if somewhat tongue in cheek) statement. Hets stand a better chance of reproducing. Your political axe to grind has so consumed you that you deny simple logic. I'm not even going to bother explaining. It's too blatantly obvious.


Haha, but at least someone got you to talk, beyond just flinging one-liners.
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
Het marriage stands a better chance of producing new taxpayers.

Bingo. That reasoning also explains why the state is so opposed to abortion.

Although I doubt the government has figured this out for themselves, yet - their rationale seems more dogmatic than practical. I've sometimes wondered if governments want people to get married because married people are less likely to want to die opposing the government (people are presumably less likely to sacrifice themselves if they have a spouse and family to support) and more likely to desire stability as opposed to change (change is bad for governments in general).
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Wow, this turn of events is really twisting my gizzard! robjustrob and me, agreeing with Shelby!

Thanks, Shelby, that's one of the points I wanted to make. Although, even at that, I don't really see the vested interest the state has in meddling with our reproductive rights - married or single, straight or gay, it's none-o-they-bizness. Uh, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the Earth in general, and the USA in particular, is not reaching dangerously low population levels, is it? Why would the state care if I don't reproduce, when there are breeders out there having enough kids for themselves, me, my partner, and every gay person out there?
 

amazed

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Posts
10
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
221
Location
NJ
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The NJ supreme court decision has implications for the entire nation. NJ has no residency or blood test requirements. NJ does not have a law barring out-of-state couples from marrying in the state if they would be prohibited from marrying in their home state. That means homosexual couples could flock to the state to get married. And their home state would have to recognize it just as the do hetero marriage licenses.
 

joyboytoy79

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
3,686
Media
32
Likes
60
Points
193
Location
Washington, D.C. (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
The NJ supreme court decision has implications for the entire nation. NJ has no residency or blood test requirements. NJ does not have a law barring out-of-state couples from marrying in the state if they would be prohibited from marrying in their home state. That means homosexual couples could flock to the state to get married. And their home state would have to recognize it just as the do hetero marriage licenses.

Well, in theory other states would have to recognize the marriages. However, most states of DOMAs. In order for the other states to be obligated to honour these marriages, the DOMAs themselves would need to be challenged and struck down.

It's not quite so cut-and-dried.
 

amazed

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Posts
10
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
221
Location
NJ
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Yes, you're right it is complicated as law usually is. As was explained by analysts, the focus (if NJ legislation upholds the court's decision) is not on same sex marriages but on the "civil contract" which is a marriage license. Can another state invalidate certain legal contracts initiated in other states? If they dont permit them then they could be preventing commerce and trade across state lines. The assets a married couple obtains would not be able to leave NJ. And what if one person of a same sex married couple decides to leave NJ and move to PA? Can he/she marry a hetero? Wouldnt that be polygamy? And could he/she bring with him all the couple's assets since he doesnt have to worry about "community property." Could the lone spouse in NJ file a divorce? Would PA recognize a divorce decree if it doesnt recognize the "contract" intially?
Many questions are raised which is why ppl are looking to see what happens in NJ next.
Of course, NJ legislature can solve these issues by also making laws establishing a residency requirement. Or even an ammendment overturning the court's decision.
 

Skull Mason

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2006
Posts
3,035
Media
6
Likes
110
Points
193
Location
Dirty Jersey
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Jersey knows the deal! Leave it to Jersey to keep it real! Why would someone be against gay marriage? Who cares!! If two people want to get married let em it shouldnt bother you. It's a fing ceremony woopie. Let people live.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Skull Mason and Amazed, you both keep referring to same-gender marriages in NJ. Did I miss something? Please, in a discussion of this magnitude, be careful of word choice. That's part of the discussion - civil union rights versus marriage rights versus no rights.

I'm still waiting for someone to give me valid reasons (Shelby's tongue-in-cheek, on-the-mark comments aside) why the state has a vested interest in granting special rights to one arbitrary segment of the population.