NJ Supreme Court: Gays have same rights as Heterosexuals

[NewJersey]

And 8 more states will be making such votes to ban gay marriage in the coming elections. It is expected it will pass in nearly every one.

And that's something to write home about...


Don't you think the exact same thing would have happened if say...equal rights for blacks was put up to a vote state by state...or allowing interracial marriage?

Sometimes, the 'popular' idea isn't always the right idea.

 

[NewJersey]

The snowball has very slowly started down the hill. It's going to hit a lot of bumps on the way down but should reach the bottom hopefully sooner than 40 years. I'm gonna be optimistic and guess 25 or so. Maybe not called "marriage" but standardized federal gay unions with all the trimmings will be legal in this country some day.

I think the ball just skipped about 20 feet on its way down the hill.

 

[Uncle Remus]

And that's something to write home about...


Don't you think the exact same thing would have happened if say...equal rights for blacks was put up to a vote state by state...or allowing interracial marriage?

Sometimes, the 'popular' idea isn't always the right idea.

Sometimes they call that tyranny.

 

[MzDiz]

Sometimes, the 'popular' idea isn't always the right idea.

Wise words, my friend, and they can be applied in so many places.

There are a lot of things that go on out there that I don't agree with, but I would never try to tell someone how to live their life. That was supposed to be what America stood for - freedom. Not just freedom for the majority of the moment. Opinions change, doing the right thing never does.

People may not agree with gay marriage and that's their right. To prohibit someone else from marriage is stepping on their rights and not a very American thing to do.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Maybe not called "marriage" but standardized federal gay unions with all the trimmings will be legal in this country some day.

That's what I think will happen as well. It's the practical answer, equal rights without creating another category of marriage. It allows the politicians to say to both sides that they have supported their views. I still wonder if that will end the battle. Does it have be called "marriage" or is it enough that it is equal? I can see a lawyer trying to bring a "separate but equal" type of suit, essentially saying that it creates a different class for homosexuals.

I'm pleased with the decision as a NJ citizen, even though I don't have a horse in the race. I'm glad that the court gave the legislature the final responsibility. Ultimately, the legislature must answer to the voters, so they will have to consider all the opinions of their constituants in the next 6 months. I don't like when the judicial system tries to legislate-it's not their area.

 

[basas]

And that's something to write home about...


Don't you think the exact same thing would have happened if say...equal rights for blacks was put up to a vote state by state...or allowing interracial marriage?

Sometimes, the 'popular' idea isn't always the right idea.

IMO, there is a HUGE difference between 'interracial marriage', and gay marriage...mind you, this may be for another thread.

The thing is, even the courts agreed it was up to the state legislature what they want to do with this ruling. The fact is…the legislature is elected BY THE PEOPLE. Therefore, it only makes sense they are going to do what is popular with the people, and what it takes to get re-elected. The court decided it was not their place to 'write the law', and decide the ruling's implementations.

 

[Mrs.Toad]

And that's something to write home about...


Don't you think the exact same thing would have happened if say...equal rights for blacks was put up to a vote state by state...or allowing interracial marriage?

Sometimes, the 'popular' idea isn't always the right idea.

Absolutely!

I'm in one of those states that has a marriage amendment on the ballot. We also have an initiative which would allow same-sex domestic partnerships (already available in our capital city). Many are saying that both could pass.

One thing I think is sad is no one even seems to be trying to defeat the marriage amendment. They seem to be concentrating on getting Domestic Partnerships passed, probably because they realize it's the only one they stand a chance on.


But go New Jersey!

 

[Mrs.Toad]

It's the practical answer, equal rights without creating another category of marriage.

I'm curious, how would allowing same-sex marriage, and calling it marriage, create another category of marriage? All they'd have to do is replace the words "man" and "woman" with "person", and "husband" and "wife" with "spouse" in the marriage statutes. (Although that second one was mostly taken care with women's lib.)

To me, it's the civil union, domestic partnership, whatever you want to call it, that is creating another category of marriage.

To me, the practical answer is to allow same-sex couples access to the same rules and regulations available to straight folks, rather than waste time and money creating a whole new set just for them.

 

[eclectics]

Absolutely!

I'm in one of those states that has a marriage amendment on the ballot. We also have an initiative which would allow same-sex domestic partnerships (already available in our capital city). Many are saying that both could pass.

One thing I think is sad is no one even seems to be trying to defeat the marriage amendment. They seem to be concentrating on getting Domestic Partnerships passed, probably because they realize it's the only one they stand a chance on.


But go New Jersey!

Better a small victory than a big defeat. Little victories get people used to the realization that maybe the big victory won't be the end of the world after all.

 

[Fitswimmer]

They seem to be concentrating on getting Domestic Partnerships passed, probably because they realize it's the only one they stand a chance on.

And they are probably right. They're much more likely to get the middle of the pack voters for that.

Gay marriage is different from interracial marriage. It is a fundamental change in the definition of marriage in regard to gender. Of course, I wasn't around for the interracial battle, so the rhetoric may have been the same-I don't know.

 

[dcentity2000]

There's a beautiful divide here between want and need. On the one hand, the executive could act based upon what the people need; on the other hand, they could act based upon what the people want. Exclusively subscribing to just one isn't the answer - the decision needs to be made on an individual basis.

Easier said then done.



Rich::

 

[Mrs.Toad]

Better a small victory than a big defeat. Little victories get people used to the realization that maybe the big victory won't be the end of the world after all.

True, and if domestic partnerships pass, I will be very proud of my state, regardless of whether the other passes.

I just think same sex couples are worthy of using the same word to describe their relationship as my husband and I do.

 

[Cool-Beans]

Woo-Hoo!

I almost feel like it is wrong to be celebrating. My feeling is more, "High Flippin Time." But, Yippee, anyway.

If straight people who join lives without a church/temple/whatever ceremony are considered married, then I would like to see gay people who do the same get married. Civil Union, my patootie. Married.

But this is a step in the right direction.

 

[basas]

True, and if domestic partnerships pass, I will be very proud of my state, regardless of whether the other passes.

I just think same sex couples are worthy of using the same word to describe their relationship as my husband and I do.

Just wondering...what state are you in?

Personally, I don't support domestic partnerships either. Though, I'm sure many that have my views would not be as upset if they were to pass, as long as it wasn't called marriage. First preference, however, is that neither come to be.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I'm curious, how would allowing same-sex marriage, and calling it marriage, create another category of marriage? All they'd have to do is replace the words "man" and "woman" with "person", and "husband" and "wife" with "spouse" in the marriage statutes. (Although that second one was mostly taken care with women's lib.)

I was thinking that they would create a new statutory definition for gay marriage.

 

[punkin]

Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye (New York)wrote that “a history or tradition of discrimination — no matter how entrenched — does not make the discrimination constitutional.”

I think New Jersey did not go far enough, but I am happy with the decision anyway. As someone else said, beter a small victory than abig defeat.

 

[Mrs.Toad]

Just wondering...what state are you in?

Personally, I don't support domestic partnerships either. Though, I'm sure many that have my views would not be as upset if they were to pass, as long as it wasn't called marriage. First preference, however, is that neither come to be.

Colorado. 14 years since the unconstitutional Amendment 2 was passed, I'm happy to see the views of most of my neighbors broadening.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

Way to go New Jersey!

 

[NewJersey]

IMO, there is a HUGE difference between 'interracial marriage', and gay marriage...mind you, this may be for another thread.

The thing is, even the courts agreed it was up to the state legislature what they want to do with this ruling. The fact is…the legislature is elected BY THE PEOPLE. Therefore, it only makes sense they are going to do what is popular with the people, and what it takes to get re-elected. The court decided it was not their place to 'write the law', and decide the ruling's implementations.

My point was that there was alot of resistance, especially in the south, to interracial marriage so if it was put up to a popular vote, it could still be illegal today, or could have taken longer to be made legal in some states.

Same can be said for equal rights for African Americans.

Sometimes, for the greater good of society (and yes, legalizing gay marriage won't lead to the second coming of Christ, as some thought would happen in MA), it's better to leave it up to the courts.

 

[Caradana]

Tim, you're right. Smart money bets that half the South would still have segregated schools had they not been induced to comply.