THE END OF THE WORLD IS HERE

[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?

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.

So what is next...State funded artificial semination for lesbians and State funded surrogate children for gay guys? Let's see...they have to be in complete parity with heterosexuals don't they? Kind of like Leave It to Beaver with 2 Junes or 2 Wards?

I believe that marriage is what society at large wants to define it as. Society at large defines what is in its best interests or for whatever reason.

I'm not against homosexuality per se...I just don't believe it needs a State Seal of Approval. Why can't Mormons have multiple wives? For that matter, why can't anyone else?

If you want to shake up society norms...why not make clothing optional? Why can't anyone that wants to openly be nude whenever or where ever they want to do it? No harm is there?

It is up to society to determine what its norms are. Everybody cannot do everything they want to do.

[kim&james 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.

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

Matako get your facts straight before you bother to put your uninformed opinion on a public forum ... You are moving from one controversy to another... what a troll!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It is up to society to determine what its norms are. Everybody cannot do everything they want to do.

Agreed. Of course, by this yardstick, gay civil unions will have to be legal in New Jersey, given the liberal stance of most people of this state on that issue.

But then again, what is the norm in New Jersey need not be the norm in Alabama

[mybackpages 0]

Why can't Mormons have multiple wives? For that matter, why can't anyone else?

Because of Reynolds v. US where the court ruled polygamy is not protected under the free exercise clause when the state can show a compelling interests to prohibit a practice to protect the health, welfare and safety the society. and Because the Official Morman Church does not allow polygamy.

It is up to society to determine what its norms are. Everybody cannot do everything they want to do.

Society can not determine norms that are a violation of the law.

[Marc and Olga 0]

Why can't Mormons have multiple wives? For that matter, why can't anyone else?

Because of Reynolds v. US where the court ruled polygamy is not protected under the free exercise clause when the state can show a compelling interests to prohibit a practice to protect the health, welfare and safety the society. and Because the Official Morman Church does not allow polygamy.

Use to be Mormon, this changed ONLY because of the laws of the land...if it were not illegal the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) would most likely still practice polygamy. (look at their offshoots that DO still practice polygamy.)

If you want to shake up society norms...why not make clothing optional? Why can't anyone that wants to openly be nude whenever or where ever they want to do it? No harm is there?

Here is one good reason NOT to make clothing optional!

[peejay 327]

Why can't Mormons have multiple wives? For that matter, why can't anyone else?

Because of Reynolds v. US where the court ruled polygamy is not protected under the free exercise clause when the state can show a compelling interests to prohibit a practice to protect the health, welfare and safety the society. and Because the Official Morman Church does not allow polygamy.

It is up to society to determine what its norms are. Everybody cannot do everything they want to do.

Society can not determine norms that are a violation of the law.

So homosexuals can marry...but Mormons can't have 2 wives? What about Muslims?

It still doesn't answer the fundamental question of "why". Why one and not the other.

I know in my State they recently codified into the State constitution defining marriage as being between one man and one woman? So is this a violation of the law? I don't believe it is.

Whether anyone agrees with or not...it is the community standard that the people of our State decided on for its own reasons. I have several homosexual couples living in my neighborhood. None of them fled in terror. Apparently they don't require State approval to be together. They live the same as before the constitutional amendment.

[mybackpages 0]

Why can't Mormons have multiple wives? For that matter, why can't anyone else?

Because of Reynolds v. US where the court ruled polygamy is not protected under the free exercise clause when the state can show a compelling interests to prohibit a practice to protect the health, welfare and safety the society. and Because the Official Morman Church does not allow polygamy.

It is up to society to determine what its norms are. Everybody cannot do everything they want to do.

Society can not determine norms that are a violation of the law.

So homosexuals can marry...but Mormons can't have 2 wives? What about Muslims?

It still doesn't answer the fundamental question of "why". Why one and not the other.

I know in my State they recently codified into the State constitution defining marriage as being between one man and one woman? So is this a violation of the law? I don't believe it is.

Whether anyone agrees with or not...it is the community standard that the people of our State decided on for its own reasons. I have several homosexual couples living in my neighborhood. None of them fled in terror. Apparently they don't require State approval to be together. They live the same as before the constitutional amendment.

many states have codified their state constitutions because they donot want to give same sex couple the same protection the state constitution might require. You can't violate the law if you make it law. This is the reasoning behind a US constituttional amendment. That is not going to happen however. and eventually we will see the 14th amendment equal protection clause enacted by the court overturnign all state laws. Or the legislative body will do it first. It's a matter of time before the US acknowledges marriage equality.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Homosexuality is about sex...

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

Indeed, considering that many hetereosexual men end up marrying partners that they are not totally happy with (and later divorce) because "guaranteed" sex is their primary motivation.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

According to Instapundit, Harold Ford Jr, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Tennessee, had this to say about the ruling:

I do not support the decision today reached by the New Jersey Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. I oppose gay marriage, and have voted twice in Congress to amend the United States Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. This November there's a referendum on the Tennessee ballot to ban same-sex marriage - I am voting for it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

According to Instapundit, Harold Ford Jr, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Tennessee, had this to say about the ruling:

I do not support the decision today reached by the New Jersey Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. I oppose gay marriage, and have voted twice in Congress to amend the United States Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. This November there's a referendum on the Tennessee ballot to ban same-sex marriage - I am voting for it.

Perhaps he didn't read the ruling properly either.

Makes you wonder why people are so outraged - what else is the court supposed to do? They have merely recognised that gay couples should have legal rights and have left it up to the state legislature to decide what those rights are and how they are to be enshrined in law.

Edited October 26, 2006 by erekose

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

According to Instapundit, Harold Ford Jr, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Tennessee, had this to say about the ruling:

I do not support the decision today reached by the New Jersey Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. I oppose gay marriage, and have voted twice in Congress to amend the United States Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. This November there's a referendum on the Tennessee ballot to ban same-sex marriage - I am voting for it.

Perhaps he didn't read the ruling properly either.

The issue is being demagogued by politicians. Harold Ford is scared of being painted with the 'liberal' brush in conservative Tennessee so all he's doing is running hard and fast from anything that might sound liberal to the hillbilly electorate in that state

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The issue is being demagogued by politicians. Harold Ford is scared of being painted with the 'liberal' brush in conservative Tennessee so all he's doing is running hard and fast from anything that might sound liberal to the hillbilly electorate in that state

Its "soundbite politics" at its worst - you don't have to address the issue as simply say the right things. In this case, any hint of "Gay Marriage" people assume that's exactly what you must stand for - only highlights the stupidity (and prejudice) of some people that is rooted ultimately in old fashioned homophobia than actually addressing the issue, or recognising that it is a subject worthy of a public dialogue.

[eric&gen 0]

Oh stop it silly gooses