Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 10/26/2006 View Wed 10/25/2006 View Tue 10/24/2006 View Mon 10/23/2006 View Sun 10/22/2006 View Sat 10/21/2006 View Fri 10/20/2006
1
2006-10-26 Home Front: Culture Wars
N.J. rules same-sex couples should get same rights as heterosexuals
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Fred 2006-10-26 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 I love you, Johnnycakes.
Posted by Vito Spatafore 2006-10-26 00:12||   2006-10-26 00:12|| Front Page Top

#2 'Gay marriage' is about money and only about money. Were it honestly debated as such I would have much less of a problem with 'gay marriage' were its proponents to drop the rampant deception that occurs at present all over the world whenever this subject is brought up.

I can't recall anyone ever being honest about this. Any agenda that requires its proponents to be systematically dishonest should always be opposed.
Posted by phil_b 2006-10-26 00:25||   2006-10-26 00:25|| Front Page Top

#3 Then, let us get real honest. Marrige is part of Institution. There is a line that cannot be crossed there.

The Constitution of the United States of America adds equal rights under the law.

The state has no right to impose it's view of Marrige on the Church - but as so often, the ability to do so exists.

There is an overreach for rights which is not necessary.

What is disgraceful is when those who live with same sex partners are denied access to the hospital, Funeral, quarters, Property rights, and other major legal areas due to sex or familial approval because of a families denial. Love is not a political statement, nor should it become a state of depravity and loss.

The state may not impose upon church same sex marrige, nor may the church prevent God from recognizing someones love for another.

I have an odd feeling that this argument is at the forefront for little other reason than what you said Phil; Money. If so, rott their souls. All of em.

But by bill of rights, persue Civil unions. I back civil union.

They need to wait for the Marrige part until a better time, like when they won't all get killed under shiria law because they were gay and did not understand that they do not have a good history of forming or maintaining wholesome families.

I think the timing for this argument is very wrong considering that we fight for the ability to even have a beer after work, or an elected government for that matter.
Posted by closedanger@hotmail.com">closedanger@hotmail.com  2006-10-26 01:30||   2006-10-26 01:30|| Front Page Top

#4 It's a lie. Gay folks have the exact right that everyone else does. To find a nice partner of the opposite sex and marry them. The law applies to all and should. This ruling applies only to gay people. It's wrong.
Posted by badanov 2006-10-26 01:49|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org]  2006-10-26 01:49|| Front Page Top

#5 Bad, you see the need for no "Special rights" if there is Equal rights under the law then.
I agree.

Marrige is between a man and a woman.
Posted by closedanger@hotmail.com">closedanger@hotmail.com  2006-10-26 02:19||   2006-10-26 02:19|| Front Page Top

#6 What really concerns me is the rights of people who have sex with dead dogs hit by cars! What about their rights? Are they not people too?
Posted by anon 2006-10-26 02:34||   2006-10-26 02:34|| Front Page Top

#7 Once the State(s) formally surrenders, the next step is to demand that the State-Fed withdraw any and all tax breaks + other for mainstream organized religion. As said times before, the greatest/ultimate threat to America as we know it is from within. Hardline activists don't give a damn that SOCIALISM-GOVERNMENTISM > temporary boons/benefits in return for long-term detriment regressions, + national-societal weakness. I may be wrong, but I believe that it was MARK STEYN??? whom said that the WORLD AS WE KNOW IT IS ENDING, THAT NON-NATURAL FORCES/POWERS THAT BE ARE [SELFISHLY] FORCING THE WORLD TO END, and that THE FUTURE GLOBALIST WORLD WILL BE ONE OF DARKNESS, a GLOBAL DARK AGE(S) + AGE OF IGNORANCE-STATISM willfully and deliberately imposed upon the world by itself, or words to that effect. * Once SOCIALIST ANTI-AMERICAN AMERIKAN WASHINGTON DC = USSA-USR starts runing out of $$$ ala Cold War USSR-Commie Bloc, Amerika will start "cutting back" and taking thingys = rights away ala HILLARY'S "TAKE IT AWAY FROM YOU" SPEECH. LEFT > America is the only one that can make Socialism Utopianism-Globalism work, ergo America = Amerika is the only one that has to give up its sovereignty, independence, + endowments for the good of the world. OUR DESTABILIZATION, DEFEAT, _ DESTRUCTION IS FOR OUR OWN GOOD. OWG + SOCIALISM NOW, SSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHH EXPLANATION-JUSTIFICATION TO AMERICAN = AMERIKAN VOTERS LATER = NEVER. National Cantonization/Enclavization would be funny iff the Lefties actually believed = intended to obey their own agenda.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-10-26 04:08||   2006-10-26 04:08|| Front Page Top

#8 "I may be wrong, but I believe that it was MARK STEYN??? whom said that the WORLD AS WE KNOW IT IS ENDING, THAT NON-NATURAL FORCES/POWERS THAT BE ARE [SELFISHLY] FORCING THE WORLD TO END, and that THE FUTURE GLOBALIST WORLD WILL BE ONE OF DARKNESS, a GLOBAL DARK AGE(S) + AGE OF IGNORANCE-STATISM willfully and deliberately imposed upon the world by itself, or words to that effect."

That should read "who" -- Mark Steyn who.
Posted by Rory B. Bellows 2006-10-26 04:15||   2006-10-26 04:15|| Front Page Top

#9 "The state has no right to impose it's view of Marrige on the Church"

Nope, the CHURCH has no right to impose it's view of marriage on the state.
Posted by Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2006-10-26 06:31||   2006-10-26 06:31|| Front Page Top

#10 What really concerns me is the rights of people who have sex with dead dogs hit by cars! What about their rights? Are they not people too?

They have the right to be bitten by rabid dogs and have their throats torn out slowly by our leader, while the rest of the pack tears at their living flesh.
Posted by the Pack 2006-10-26 07:50||   2006-10-26 07:50|| Front Page Top

#11 Are they gonna make a new licence plate for the state too???? NEW JERSEY "THE HOMO STATE" or have the MASSHOLES got that one?????
Posted by ARMYGUY 2006-10-26 09:54||   2006-10-26 09:54|| Front Page Top

#12 Hey, in Massachusetts we're just grateful it's not mandatory...yet.
Posted by tu3031 2006-10-26 09:58||   2006-10-26 09:58|| Front Page Top

#13 "the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our State Constitution."

Does this mean anyone can sue for equal "benefits" as well? Maybe I can get a health insurance package that has better eye and dental coverage. Those retirement and GI benefits look mighty tasty as well.
Posted by DepotGuy 2006-10-26 10:21||   2006-10-26 10:21|| Front Page Top

#14 I want to marry Teddy Kennedy so I can inherit his money. And also John Kerry. It's my right.
Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2006-10-26 11:21||   2006-10-26 11:21|| Front Page Top

#15 And so do I! But, it is also my right to keep this polygamous same-sex marriage on a purely platonical level, just to be clear on that.
Posted by anonymous5089 2006-10-26 11:23||   2006-10-26 11:23|| Front Page Top

#16 But which one gets to screw over the other in a divorce?
Posted by mojo">mojo  2006-10-26 11:59||   2006-10-26 11:59|| Front Page Top

#17 The defense of marriage is not 'discrimination.' Marriage has for millennia meant the union of a man and a woman. To label the defense of that age-old standard 'discrimination' is to indict the grand sweep of human history and every civilized nation that has ever existed. Attempts to raise the red herring of 'bias,' only debase public debate and distort the central question, which is, whether marriage is a malleable social construct silly putty in the hands of judges to be reshaped as they deem fit or whether marriage is what it has been since creation, the union of one man and one woman for life.

If it is, as proponents suggest, discrimination to deny same-sex couples the privilege of marriage, then it is also discrimination to deny the privilege to anyone else who wants to get married. Who else wants to get married but is denied by the state? Many people. And as soon as this taboo is broken, watch them line up.

How long do you suppose it will be, once same-sex marriage is a reality, before brothers want to marry sisters? How long do you suppose it will be before sisters want to marry sisters? How long do you suppose it will be before brothers want to marry brothers?

How many same-sex marriage advocates want to go down that road?

If incestuous marriages don't scare you off, how about marriages involving more than two people? What possible reason could we find for "discriminating" against threesomes, foursomes, fivesomes, etc.?

A man in Great Britain was in the news a few years back who wanted to marry his dog. How could we possibly "discriminate" against an idea like that?

The truth is that most of us do believe in discrimination. In fact, we discriminate every day when we make choices. I'm not sure you can live without discriminating – between good food and bad, between safe conduct and unsafe conduct, etc.

Discrimination can be a good thing – a necessary component of life. It's a bad thing only when we use it prejudicially against people because of immutable circumstances – like the color of their skin.

People who are homosexuals, transsexuals, transgendered people, intersexuals, lesbians and metrosexuals are characterized in those ways because of their conduct, their behavior, their choices.

Those folks have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals. They can marry one member of the opposite sex. No one forces them to do so. But they have that right.

This system has worked pretty well for the last 6,000 years. We tamper with it at great peril to our society.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-10-26 14:31||   2006-10-26 14:31|| Front Page Top

#18 I tried to get domestic partner benefits from my girlfriend's employer (Cook County, Illinois). They replied that we had to either be married or of the same sex. Don't I have a genuine equal protection argument?
Posted by Mark E. 2006-10-26 15:04||   2006-10-26 15:04|| Front Page Top

#19 I for one think there ought to be a civil union option between two people of any persuasion. And I think people ought to be either married or party to a civil union before they are eligible for benefits from their partner's work.

Until this happens, Mark E., I suggest you go to Thailand and get one of those sex change operations. Just be sure to keep your penis on ice until then or in case you change your mind. :-)
Posted by gorb 2006-10-26 16:50||   2006-10-26 16:50|| Front Page Top

#20 mcsgeek1 hits the nail on the head. And some wacko from the Church of What's Happening Now is going to come along with his revelation that if multiple wives were OK for Abraham, they're OK for everyone. And based on the logic of this opinion, they're going to have a hard time stopping it in NJ. Cause they're in a loving arrangement. This will nnot stand, and the gays may not be happy with the way it ends.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-10-26 16:59||   2006-10-26 16:59|| Front Page Top

#21 This will nnot stand, and the gays may not be happy with the way it ends.

As long as it ends...
Posted by badanov 2006-10-26 17:34|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org]  2006-10-26 17:34|| Front Page Top

#22 I think corporations should be treated the same as other kinds of persons. I want to marry Exxon!
Posted by Slaviger Angomong7708 2006-10-26 18:17||   2006-10-26 18:17|| Front Page Top

#23 No you don't, Slaviger Angomong7708. Exxon is forever spilling things, and you really don't want to be responsible for the cleanup.
Posted by trailing wife 2006-10-26 20:43||   2006-10-26 20:43|| Front Page Top

16:24 sinse
23:49 Zenster
23:43 Zenster
23:37 Zenster
23:25 Contrarian
23:19 Thoth
23:17 Frank G
23:14 Zhang Fei
23:12 RD
23:04 Contrarian
23:02 trailing wife
23:00 DanNY
22:54 Shieldwolf
22:52 Shieldwolf
22:41 wxjames
22:39 Zhang Fei
22:33 Zenster
22:31 Cyber Sarge
22:31 Zenster
22:28 Zenster
22:27 Zenster
22:24 Zenster
22:19 tu3031
22:10 markawarka









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com