N.J. Court Opens Door to Gay Marriage

yup agreed.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. If it's the same thing, call it the same thing. How is this not analogous, as a concept, to separate-but-equal treatment? The 'sacred straights' contingent is just plain wrong. I'm all about considering all legitimate opinions. Theirs just isn't one.

agreed as well.

While on the surface it seems prudent to take what you can get when the other option is most likely getting nothing -- I agree wholeheartedly with grey.

Abolish the institution of Marriage as a government sanctioned legal status which confers rights and provide Civil Unions for everyone.

Marriage has no place in government if it's a religious ceremony.

Could not have said it better myself Brian.

It's different than "seperate but equal" because it's equal. "Seperate but equal" was not. (and, for that matter, still isn't. )

If in all other ways it's identical to marriage and only the name is different. let them have their name. In won't make any difference except for the actual word on the actual licence. You can call yourself married, everyone will think you're married, it will be marriage in all sense except what it actually says on your marriage licence.

It's a way to give them something meaningless in order to get what we want. And once everybody sees that the world doesn't fall apart, THEN you cross that final T and call it marriage.

marriage is a contract bound by contractual law.
I really believe any two people should be able to enter into an exclusive contract to be responcible for each others well being. Sex shouldnnt be a requisit for marriage rights.
A case to concider. Two 80 year old sisters, lived together for 60 years, they are totally responcible for each others care and are just as much a family as any husband and wife, they are not gay and have never married. and yet they cant join each others health covers. There is a good chance with how the laws are reguarding wills, that one sister will not be able to keep their home after the other dies. Are you telling me these people should have less rights than a husband and wife that may not even like each other, who may frequently cheat on each other but since these two people are the same sex and related that they can not enter into the same contractual aggrements and enjoy the same benefits.

Basically the marriage laws create two classes of citizens and one has more rights or is BETTER than the other. ANd that is unamerican.

Right on. Now when will people's attention turn to that most neglected class, single people?

I think in the mind of many people, being single and unmarried is it's OWN benefit. :P

Standeck - join into a civil union with me. (Doesn't have the same ring as "marry me" - but, you know...)

Interesting concept. It would be interesting to make "marriage" a religious terminology while "civil union" a legalized term. This would be a good "middle of the road" solution.

This is almost how I feel, Standeck. Really, I think we should just get the government entirely out of the business of marriage (including the business of recognizing them). Let the government provide, and recognize, civil unions. Let marriage be a religious institution (which wouldn't provide the legal benefits and protections that it does now) and leave marriages entirely up to religious organizations. In fact, that might even be the way to eventually force certain religions to change their stances on gays.

@Miss Dev - The ring is the same! Sorry, I can never resist a bad pun! Already in a marriage/union but I'll check with my SO regarding a Limited Liability Corporation! ;-)

@grey - There are already two separate institutions of marriage providing two different sets of benefits. It's just that most people enter them at the same time. You don't have to--many people get civil marriages without any religious ceremony, and I bet the reverse happens often enough.

Why should we "force certain religions to change their stance on gays"? There is nothing legitimate to do to that end except to let them experience the natural consequences of their positions, which may include people's drifting away.

Nobody is talking about forcing religions to do anything. Just governments.

There are already two separate institutions of marriage providing two different sets of benefits. It's just that most people enter them at the same time. You don't have to--many people get civil marriages without any religious ceremony, and I bet the reverse happens often enough.

Hi, Nefarious. Yes, I know that they're two separate things, at least in a certain way. The problem is that the religious version automatically entails the legal version, which is tantamount to the state recognizing the church's ceremony as its own. Many people do have a civil marriage without a religious ceremony, yes. The reverse, though, basically can't happen (at least in the mainstream religions) without, at least, the civil portion of things already having happened (the Catholic Church, for instance, will 'bless' an existing civil marriage with a wedding ceremony of its own, but you can't do that without already being married---otherwise, the ceremony you have with them counts with the state as well).

Why should we "force certain religions to change their stance on gays"? There is nothing legitimate to do to that end except to let them experience the natural consequences of their positions, which may include people's drifting away.

That's what I meant. Or that's the 'how' of it, anyway. Force them to with the natural consequences of their positions, with the inevitable drifting away of the people. As far as the 'why' goes: I didn't say 'we,' you did. I just meant that churches might naturally be 'forced' into change by their own parishioners if said churches were left out in the cold as the only bigotry-ridden marriage providers left.

Ditto, you should watch a href="http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1107">this clip Basically a short interview with Charles McVeety (christian-right leader) who had organized some multifaith group to march on Parliament against gay marriage. He gives all the usually baloney about defending human rights - very annoying but worth sitting through for the way the interviewer turns it around at the end. Enjoy!

Quite frankly, this country would probably be better off if sexual impulses were given half as much weight as violent impulses.

(I'm also a bit surprised to see someone with your extreme views discussing the idea of evolution -- even if in a back-handed sort of way.)

Still, if you can provide even one example of how someone's Gay Marriage will negatively affect you (or anyone else) I'd be happy to read it.

Brian, you have it backwards. Polls consistently show that most Americans OPPOSE gay marriage. You represent the extremist viewpoint. But thats typical - left leaning folks are constantly throwing around the "extremist" label. But when we call your view extreme you just get angry. But thats just it, you're angry, you're judgemental and you're intolerant of people who don't share your views.

I'm not a very religous person Brian. I do believe in evolution.

My feelings here are not based on religous beliefs.

Why should I provide any examples of how it will affect me? That will simply provoke the same tired arguments. I'm not interested in getting into a debate on how "bad" it is.

I simply wanted to state the direction I see humans going. In the end, it makes no difference at all, so do whatever it is that you feel like doing.

There is one curiosity I have regarding homosexuals though... Why in most of the same sex couples I have seen, is there a "woman" figure and a "male" figure? Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose?

This comment makes my head hurt. It's difficult to come up with a way to respond to it other than flailing one's arms about and yelling "YOU'RE WRONG! YOU'RE WRONG! YOU'RE SO WRONG!!"

Having said that, it is good to see that Newsvine's expanding readership is bringing more and more points of view to the table.

Anyway, here goes:

We already allow our animal tendencies to lead us to violence and hatred. Why not allow our sexual impulses to dominate us as well?

Considering the heterocentricity* of our society, weren't our (heterosexuals', I mean) sexual impulses already dominating the way things were structured? How else did we magically come up with the 'sacred' one-man-and-one-woman configuration in the first place?

*If you're planning on responding to this comment without giving me credit for the perfectly legitimate use of the word 'heterocentricity,' expect me to do that arms-flailing-about thing I mentioned earlier...

I suppose it was the next logical step in the de-evolution of the human species

You represent the extremist viewpoint. But thats typical - left leaning folks are constantly throwing around the "extremist" label.

You honestly expect me to take back my label of "extreme" in reference to that quote?

Extreme happened to be the nicest thing I could think to say.

On a side note, could everyone please refrain from responding to Fr. Pat O'Phelia's comments and report his comment as inflammatory instead? That would be great. No sense in feeding an obvious troll.

There is one curiosity I have regarding homosexuals though... Why in most of the same sex couples I have seen, is there a "woman" figure and a "male" figure? Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose?

Well, it's somewhat off-topic but I suspect you could make an interesting article out of it if you wrote it in a manner that wasn't overtly inflammatory. I'm sure that (treated right) it would result in an interesting discussion.

@grey

I'd argue that it was not "we" who came up with the one-man-one-woman configuration but God, but that is neither here nor there. As a Catholic I cannot support gay-marriage, but as an American I cannot deny equal protection under the law to any couple gay or straight. I have been saying it for at least a few years now, but I agree with what has been said before on this thread... marriage should be a religious institution and civil unions should be the legal definition for secular institutions.

Polls consistently show that most Americans OPPOSE gay marriage.

A couple of points, Derek:

1. There's a difference between opposing gay marriage and saying that homosexuals should overcome their 'animal tendencies,' their 'sexual impulses' or they're 'no better than the common Ape.' I think (I certainly hope!) that that difference is what makes the views Brian was referring to extremist.

2. Try to remember: Most Americans can be wrong. And they are in this situation. Wrong. This isn't an everyone's-entitled-to-their-opinion situation. This is a situation where one point of view is correct, and the other one's wrong.

I'd argue that it was not "we" who came up with the one-man-one-woman configuration but God, but that is neither here nor there.

That's completely fair. But then he or she came up with the one-man-one-man, one-woman-one-woman, one-man-or-woman-one-man-or-woman configurations for some people as well then, no?

How arrogant of you, grey. Everyone who disagrees with you on the topic of same-sex marriage is wrong. Thats exactly what I'm talking about. One thing that is remarkably consistent about the hard left is a self-righteousness that begins to synchronize very nicely into fascism by another name.

Try to remember: Most Americans can be wrong. And they are in this situation. Wrong. This isn't an everyone's-entitled-to-their-opinion situation. This is a situation where one point of view is correct, and the other one's wrong.

This statement is absurd.

Every last person on this planet can be wrong at times, but there is always more than one point of view.

Why doesn't America put it to a vote, make a federal law about it. In the next election, let the nation decide whether gays should have access to marriage, or civil unions. Yes or no, and then everyone will just have to abide by the majority decision. Too simple and direct for the liberal left? Let's see where America stands on the subject. Smart money is on traditional values, not gay ones.

Derek, it's not arrogance. There are perfectly legitimate opinions which we don't accept as valid in our lawmaking. Those of the Ku Klux Klan, for instance. Or NAMBLA. Perhaps there was a time when a poll of Americans would've found that the majority opinion was that blacks shouldn't be afforded the right to vote. Or that women shouldn't've been enfranchised. Would we say that that majority was right? Or just that it was the majority, and the majority was wrong?

You (or anyone) can think whatever you want about homosexuals, homosexuality, and/or homosexual sex. But you're wrong to think that laws should necessarily align with your thoughts. Laws should treat, benefit, and protect everyone equally. Plain and simple.

You (or anyone) can think whatever you want about homosexuals, homosexuality, and/or homosexual sex. But you're wrong to think that laws should necessarily align with your thoughts. Laws should treat, benefit, and protect everyone equally. Plain and simple.

Laws already DO treat, benefit, and protect everyone equally based on the decisions you make in life. If I am born with the opposite sexual preference, which is I'm attracted to no one, then I am not entitled to the benefits of mariage OR civil union. UNLESS!!! I make it legal to MARY MYSELF!

Grey, if you want to draw parallels between racism and opposition to gay marriage, be my guest. Its your words, not mine, that the KKK is on par with those who oppose gay marriage. Its a very strained argument and doesn't even need a rebuttal.

Grey, if you want to draw parallels between racism and opposition to gay marriage, be my guest. Its your words, not mine, that the KKK is on par with those who oppose gay marriage. Its a very strained argument and doesn't even need a rebuttal.

Discrimination is discrimination, no?

And for the record, I didn't say that those who oppose gay marriage are on par with the KKK. Just that they're wrong (like the KKK's opinions are wrong).

I would certainly say that discrimination based on race (or sex, for that matter) and discrimination based on sexual orientation are analogues, though. How aren't they?

A philosophical difference of opinion about gay marriage does not equate to discrimination. Specious argument.

How does it not equate to discrimination? It seems that if one group is afforded privileges that another group is not based based on an arbitrary criterion, that it would fit the bill of discrimination.

The problem with this discussion is the fact that there are really two issues at stake here. Those on the far left and those on the far right try to make this into one issue. They have hijacked the discussion into "all or none" situation.

As far as I see it, the supporters of gay marriage fall into two categories. Those who only care about the financial and legal entitlements being equal between gays and straights versus those who want chruches to also allow them to marry. These are two different issues.

Those who oppose gay marriage also fall under these two categories but in a different way. There are those who see this as one issue that attacks the term "marriage" and some who think it is OK for gays to get entitlements but not no religious acceptance and the term just needs to be changed for them. Unfortunately the first type have misdirected everything making this into an attack on the religious term "marriage." They fear that civil acceptance is a "conspiracy" to force churches to start accepting them as well.

Now which camp do you fall under? Personally, I am OK with civil unions but ,I also want to make sure that a law is enacted to prevent the government from forcing churches to recognize these marriages in some future time.

Let's be honest, if civil unions are enacted, this could become an issue on Grants given to churches and I don't subscribe to the government governing church policies.

chruches to also allow them to marry.

I don't know a single proponent of Gay marriage that makes that argument.

With that said, there are most likely Gay couples that are religious that would be happy if their Church -would- recognize their marriage -- but I don't know of anyone who argues that the larger issue is that Churches should be forced to recognize legal unions.

In fact, most everyone I know who support Gay Marriage (and everything I've read) asserts that a Religious Union should have no place whatsoever as a legal union.

And you can pry that argument from my cold, dead hands.

forcing churches to recognize these marriages

This law would be unnecessary. What reason do you have for saying that such an action would ever occur? IF there were simply a civil union with legal rights -- what exactly would the government be forcing the church to recognize? A church could deny the Union all they want -- and it wouldn't change the legality of the union.

Let's be honest, if civil unions are enacted, this could become an issue on Grants given to churches and I don't subscribe to the government governing church policies.

Then -- perhaps they shouldn't accept government grants?

Clap clap clap.
I could only see govt giving a church a grant if they used it SOLELY to provide a service to the public that is completely religion-free.

Otherwise they can just pay out of their tithes. ho ho ho.

I am, as is probably quite clear already on this page, a huge proponent of gay marriage. One might even call it my pet issue.

And I couldn't possibly care less what churches do.

I also don't think that the government should be meddling in what they do, either by direct legislation or through appropriations. Separation of church and state, you know? (Of course, that also calls into question whether I think there should be any government appropriations/grants at all for churches, or faith-based groups, for that matter, but that's another issue entirely.)

As I've said before: If the term 'marriage' really has religious connotations which people can't give up, then get the government out of the business of granting and recognizing 'marriages' altogether. Civil unions for all, I say. Until that day, if the government's recognizing marriages for one kind of couple, then it needs to recognize marriages for all kinds of couples (given all the normal everyone-involved-needs-to-be-a-human-being-and-so-on-type limitations).

Last thing. I don't exactly understand this concern:

They fear that civil acceptance is a "conspiracy" to force churches to start accepting them as well … I am OK with civil unions but ,I also want to make sure that a law is enacted to prevent the government from forcing churches to recognize these marriages in some future time.

When has the government ever told churches how to deal with marriages before? Did I miss something there? Why would this be different?

A conspiracy to force churches legally to start accepting them just doesn't hold water, as far as I can tell. If this whole thing ends up being the way that parishioners convince their churches that they should change their ways… That's all the better, if you ask me.

Brian -

I don't know a single proponent of Gay marriage that makes that argument.

Hehehe. I do. My parents and their friends are some of them :) They probably wonder where I came from since I have no problem with gay unions. I tried explaining the difference to them but they refuse to see the difference between a state sponsored union versus a church sponsored one. For us, the difference is clear, but for many it isn't. Specially if the argument has always revolved around the term "marriage." That's how the GOP sponsored bills were advertised during the 2004 election. It was advertised as renewing the term "marriage" so alot of people are now stuck with that mentality.

What reason do you have for saying that such an action would ever occur? IF there were simply a civil union with legal rights -- what exactly would the government be forcing the church to recognize?

We have Bush right now making his own interpretations on what "torture" means. It is completely possible for all 3 branches to be controlled by people who are completely in support of unions and would therefore add a clause that religious organizations would only be given grants if they do not discriminate against same sex unions. Personally I would never have believed this possible before but after the current administration's flagrant abuse of power, I know believe there is reason for concern here.

I am trying to find a middle ground where both parties can be happy. That is why I support civil unions but I also want a way for religions to be able to keep their beliefs without any kind of backlash in the future. Obviously, laws can be overturned eventually but I think this kind of compromise will give enough time for the new generation to gain in numbers so that the issue of gay marriage will no longer be a rallying cry by then.

In all honesty, gay marriages will eventually become a norm. The majority of the younger generation does support gay marriage. It is the older generation that is less accepting of this.

Grey - The part that answers this:

When has the government ever told churches how to deal with marriages before? Did I miss something there? Why would this be different?

This is my answer to that:

It is completely possible for all 3 branches to be controlled by people who are completely in support of unions and would therefore add a clause that religious organizations would only be given grants if they do not discriminate against same sex unions.

Even if only two branches are controlled, it is possible to do it. Again, I'm just looking for a middle ground. My solution requires both parties to compromise.

Personally I would never have believed this possible before but after the current administration's flagrant abuse of power, I know believe there is reason for concern here.

If you agree that Bush was able to bend the law (hopefully only up to Nov. 7) regarding torture, detainment, etc... then it should also be possible for the left to make it hard on religious organizations to get grants as well.

I want a solution that protects both parties.

I like you because you see me as a human being.

@RadicalCentrist:

The tipping point is past. I think that people a realizing that there's no logical argument against gay marriage. Society does not come apart. Canada proves that. Absolutely nothing bad has happened as a result of Canada allowing gay marriage.

I think it is still a little too early to be using Canada's legalization of gay marriage as the benchmark for what will happen after passing such legislation. It was only made law slightly over a year ago. While I doubt society will rip itself apart, you need to look at the longterm affects that same-sex marriage might or might not have.

RC - I do agree with you that things will change eventually. Generation Y is more open minded and less prejudice than the baby boom generation. However, my concern is more aligned "with a middle of the road" approach. If we try to use brute force at this point and time then we are more than likely going to lose. I predict another 10 to 12 years for the tipping point to have a more secure hold on society. The solution I gave is just a way to mollify those who are really concerned with the affect of civil unions to their beliefs and church. We can not win if we use the hammer now, we just don't have the numbers. The 2004 presidential election proves that. I prefer a small victory now than certain defeat.

Well, Ok, brgiant. What effects do you predict?

@RC

I honestly don't know. I'm not saying anything is going to happen, but that doesn't mean that nothing will happen.

I think you have to be honest with yourself, brgiant, and realize that if you don't know what will happen, chances are, nothing will happen, and it's your own emotional response that is making it seem like something horrible will happen in the real world.

People often seem to feel like the world will end if a sufficiently frightening or upsetting change happens. And in a sense, it does, because the world where, for instance, blacks couldn't vote did, indeed, end. But society did not, as predicted, slide right into the gutter, and it was just people's fears and prejudices that made them think so.

And the chances that I am going to drop dead as I type this are slim to none, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Do I dread every word that I type because of this? No... that would be silly. All I am saying is that there is a possibility that something could happen, and to suggest that a year old law in Canada proves it won't happen is disingenuous.

The world is more comfortable seeing two people kill each other than it is comfortable seeing two people of any mix having sex. Why is that?

Yea... Sure Tyson. Canada is the great example of human equality. But, that's only because there is no difference, besides gender, between men and women in Canada. There is so little testosterone in Canada many couples are unaware they are in same-sex relationships... Rim shot!

As an American in Canada... I have noticed absolutely no change in day-to-day life since sodomite lovers have been allowed to marry. Basic human rights seem to being doing very well up here on tundra.

And someday... Canada will put an end to baby seal clubbing and win a Stanley Cup.

@JRO

Your ignorance is a beacon of stupidity to us all. What the hell are you doing on my tundra anyway? Can I persuade you to take your leave and go home?

Ditto

Can I persuade you to take your leave and go home?

I have a home in Canada, but, if you're asking if you have the "ability" to string together words intelligently to persuade... The answer is clear in your comment above.
But, if you're asking you if have the "balls" to persuade... You are Canadian. You don't even have the Stanley Cup.

I hope I didn't insult you (or anyone) by using the term "sodomite lovers". But, come on Ditto... without the sodomy -- two guys are just friends.

Are a guy and a girl that date long distance just friends?

Are a guy and a girl that date long distance just friends?

What else? If date means sex... they are lovers. Are you challenging:

without the sodomy -- two guys are just friends

I don't know all of what makes a gay relationship whole but, between men, isn't sodomy a qualifying ingredient?

JimmyP, let me also respond to this comment. Christians, Muslims, secularists, athiests do share one thing in common: They have a strong belief system that informs their view of right and wrong.

All laws are essentially a social agreement on what is right and wrong. Some people take Karl Marx as their moral ideal, others take Ghandi, others MLK and others Christ. The political candidates people support will usually reflect the ideals that are deeply a part of their belief system. This is absolutely inherent in any democracy.

You cannot divorce my belief system from the politicians I support any more than I can divorce your beliefs from the laws and politicians you support, just because I'm a Christian.

You know what belief system they share? * "Love your neighbor as yourself." — Moses (ca. 1525-1405 BCE) in the Torah, Leviticus 19:18 * "What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." — Confucius (ca. 551–479 BCE) * "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man." — Hillel (ca. 50 BCE-10 CE) * "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." — Jesus (ca. 5 BCE—33 CE) in the Gospels, Luke 6:31; Luke 10:27 (affirming of Moses)— Matthew 7:12 * "Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you." — Muhammad (c. 571 – 632 CE) in The Farewell Sermon.

It is the golden rule. If you believe that all governance should follow one rule, I believe that this would be a fair one to follow. Now, unless you would like gays banning the rights of heterosexuals to marry, I would retract your argument, and use one that is at least beneficial to your cause.

When ANY politician enacts legislation that counteracts this golden rule, people EVERYWHERE should be outraged.

Here is the exception I can think of to breaking this rule: many people do not believe that this applies to non humans, whether they be animals, fetuses, stem cells, etc. You might make a case for ignoring the golden rule if you truly believe that gays are not human.