THE END OF THE WORLD IS HERE

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Born-again Christians like myself already assume that the world is on a countdown of "last days" (and generally have done so since Paul's time--not always with good results personally).

So, in response to matako:

-_--_--_--_-

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Born-again Christians like myself already assume that the world is on a countdown of "last days" (and generally have done so since Paul's time--not always with good results personally).

So, in response to matako:

-_- -_- -_- -_-

Srini,

Can you please edit your post to put spaces in between the emoticons? The long string is preventing the previous line from wrapping properly.

[peejay 327]

The high court gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include same-sex couples or create a new system of civil unions for them.

The ruling is similar to the 1999 decision in Vermont that led to civil unions there, which offer the benefits of marriage, but not the name.

"Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state Constitution," Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the 4-3 majority's decision.

So 4 people get to decide "either same sex marriage or same sex civil union".

How about the third option...none of the above? Or are these 4 trying to legislate and dictate from the bench?

That is why constitutional amendments are necessary to define what marriage is.

Why can't someone marry their brother, sister, aunt, uncle, etc., etc. Why can't someone marry multiple partners? How about mix and match? Bi-sexual polygamy? Where to draw the line?

For the most part homosexuals can do what they want to without marriage. Heterosexuals often do not get legally hitched and live quite well.

This is nothing more than individuals trying to get the State Seal of Approval to validate their lifestyle. In the end it should be society as a whole to decide what constitutes marriage. Not 4 judges giving an either/or ultimatum.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

In the end it should be society as a whole to decide what constitutes marriage.

I agree, I would much rather see this decided by the people or by the peoples elected representatives in the legislature. But living in New Jersey, I'm here to tell ya that what the people in this state would decide is to allow them to have civil unions. In this case, the ruling is clearly not a deviation from popular opinion.

That said, it is always better for such changes in policy to be initiated by the legislature.

Edited October 25, 2006 by Gupt

[mybackpages 0]

For the most part homosexuals can do what they want to without marriage. Heterosexuals often do not get legally hitched and live quite well.

For the most part implies that discrimination is okay. There are over 1000 laws in which married couples can benefit from. Same sex couples do not have access to these protects or benefits. The NJ court, like the MA court ruled the state constitution protects couples from discrimination.Same sex marriage is not about homosexuality. It is about marriage equality.

If you do not want marriage to be extended to same sex couples then why not remove the state from the business of marriage all together. No civil marriages of any kind allowed, no special state recognition of marriage period.

In the end it should be society as a whole to decide what constitutes marriage.

I agree, I would much rather see this decided by the people or by the peoples elected representatives in the legislature. But living in New Jersey, I'm here to tell ya that what the people in this state would decide is to allow them to have civil unions. In this case, the ruling is clearly not a deviation from popular opinion.

That said, it is always better for such changes in policy to be initiated by the legislature.

So we can continue to discriminate until the legislative body is ready to change the laws? Virginia was one of a few states that still prohibited marriage between inter-racial couples until the Supreme Court rules this state law violated the Constitution.(Loving v. Virgina 1967) The Courts are there to protect our rights even when the majority doesn't want to.

[Fandango 1,440]

If I were gay, I'd go for someone my same body size....BOOM! instant double wardrobe

That's silly...

imagine the benefits!

[eric&gen 0]

wonderful

[peejay 327]

For the most part homosexuals can do what they want to without marriage. Heterosexuals often do not get legally hitched and live quite well.

For the most part implies that discrimination is okay. There are over 1000 laws in which married couples can benefit from. Same sex couples do not have access to these protects or benefits. The NJ court, like the MA court ruled the state constitution protects couples from discrimination.Same sex marriage is not about homosexuality. It is about marriage equality.

If you do not want marriage to be extended to same sex couples then why not remove the state from the business of marriage all together. No civil marriages of any kind allowed, no special state recognition of marriage period.

In the end it should be society as a whole to decide what constitutes marriage.

I agree, I would much rather see this decided by the people or by the peoples elected representatives in the legislature. But living in New Jersey, I'm here to tell ya that what the people in this state would decide is to allow them to have civil unions. In this case, the ruling is clearly not a deviation from popular opinion.

That said, it is always better for such changes in policy to be initiated by the legislature.

So we can continue to discriminate until the legislative body is ready to change the laws? Virginia was one of a few states that still prohibited marriage between inter-racial couples until the Supreme Court rules this state law violated the Constitution.(Loving v. Virgina 1967) The Courts are there to protect our rights even when the majority doesn't want to.

Let's compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. It was still defining marriage as between man and woman. Biologically this is sound reasoning.

To me...marriage is a biological union. Homosexuality is about sex...whether or not it is monogamous is irrelevant. Otherwise someone can marry a Great Dane if they want to. Why stop at the human race?

[mercy 1]

Well I for one know that Canada just totally fell into a land of chaos and debauchery since legalizing gay marriage, lacking completely in morals. Everyone is now marrying their same sex siblings, in the multiples. It's all incestuous-homosexual-polygamous marriages these days. Oh yes people, it will happen. Let gays get married and before you know it, all those siblings who have longed to get married will come out of the woodworks, or maybe those people who've always wanted to marry their dogs.

Now where is that tongue in cheek smiley face?

[mybackpages 0]

For the most part homosexuals can do what they want to without marriage. Heterosexuals often do not get legally hitched and live quite well.

For the most part implies that discrimination is okay. There are over 1000 laws in which married couples can benefit from. Same sex couples do not have access to these protects or benefits. The NJ court, like the MA court ruled the state constitution protects couples from discrimination.Same sex marriage is not about homosexuality. It is about marriage equality.

If you do not want marriage to be extended to same sex couples then why not remove the state from the business of marriage all together. No civil marriages of any kind allowed, no special state recognition of marriage period.

In the end it should be society as a whole to decide what constitutes marriage.

I agree, I would much rather see this decided by the people or by the peoples elected representatives in the legislature. But living in New Jersey, I'm here to tell ya that what the people in this state would decide is to allow them to have civil unions. In this case, the ruling is clearly not a deviation from popular opinion.

That said, it is always better for such changes in policy to be initiated by the legislature.

So we can continue to discriminate until the legislative body is ready to change the laws? Virginia was one of a few states that still prohibited marriage between inter-racial couples until the Supreme Court rules this state law violated the Constitution.(Loving v. Virgina 1967) The Courts are there to protect our rights even when the majority doesn't want to.

Let's compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. It was still defining marriage as between man and woman. Biologically this is sound reasoning.

To me...marriage is a biological union. Homosexuality is about sex...whether or not it is monogamous is irrelevant. Otherwise someone can marry a Great Dane if they want to. Why stop at the human race?

If marriage is a biological union then why do you need the state to recognize it? you can get biological with any approval from the state.

[aussiewench 9]

Homosexuality is about sex...

That is the most misunderstood thing with homosexulity and is totally erroneous.

[Married_my_love 0]

Well I for one know that Canada just totally fell into a land of chaos and debauchery since legalizing gay marriage, lacking completely in morals. Everyone is now marrying their same sex siblings, in the multiples. It's all incestuous-homosexual-polygamous marriages these days. Oh yes people, it will happen. Let gays get married and before you know it, all those siblings who have longed to get married will come out of the woodworks, or maybe those people who've always wanted to marry their dogs.

Now where is that tongue in cheek smiley face?

Oh yeah! I forgot to mention that........... tee hee

[matako 0]

I would be ashamed to be country that has no standing army other than people called Gendarmes (or Mounted royal police) , who dont even carry guns, a country that depends on another country for security. Doesnt meant Canada is a bad country.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I would be ashamed to be country that has no standing army other than people called Gendarmes (or Mounted royal police) , who dont even carry guns, a country that depends on another country for security. Doesnt meant Canada is a bad country.

Canadian troops are helping us fight our war on terror in Afghanistan, as we speak. They do not deserve to be belittled.

[JaJo 1]

This country will soon be taken over by homosexuals and soon this will be like an animal kingdom where people act on impulses as opposed to a set of moral principles.

Like you do?