NJ Supreme Court: Same-sex couples guaranteed marriage rights.
 

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opi...me/a-68-05.pdf

It's only available as a PDF, so I'll summarize:

A group of seven same sex couples in stable 10 year plus relationships sued the state of NJ for refusing to issue them marriage licenses.

The superior court issued summary judgment in favor of the state. This would have been for the purpose of passing the case up the line given that there was no factual dispute involved. It was appealed and the appellate court ruled 2-1 in favor of the state, with one judge amending the complaint to include two separate issues for consideration, the issue of rights, and the issue of the right to the name marriage.

The NJ Supreme Court ruled today that the NJ state constitution provides that same sex couples in NJ are guaranteed the same rights as opposite sex couples, giving the legislature 180 days to decide whether to modify marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a new category. This part of the decision was unanimous, 7-0. Three justices dissented on the issue of the name, writing an opinion that the constitution does guarantee a right to marriage in addition to equal marriage rights.

As it stands now, same sex-couples don't currently have the right to marry or be legally joined in a legally recognized relationship with the same rights, but they will in less than six months.

Needless to say, I'm very pleased with this. The NJ Supreme Court was smart to have presented it in terms of a state constitutional issue, which means that there's no way for opponents to appeal it to the federal level.

Three down, 47 to go.

Gilda

I heard about this on the radio earlier. Excellent news!

It's important to note that they allow the legislature to choose the NAME of the union, so long as it has all the same rights as marriage. From The Nation:

Congrats!!!!!! I am glad to hear the news. :)

Sweet. That's great.

I am so incredibly pleased to hear that.

Now, if only my own state would wise up. Unfortunately, I live in a place that has already passed legislation against same-sex marriage. Ugh.

Hrm... maybe I'll have to move to NJ... not to marry a woman, but just to support a state that would support that kind of union. =)

Same here, Ms. Snowy. It was a DINO that killed it last time in Washington. The Dems have stopped supporting him so he is running as an Independent now. :mad:

Hopefully, this will get slammed down (no pun intended) when it hit the SCOTUS.

Also, in classic liberal fashion, this ruling comes 2 weeks before the NJ senatorial election. Timing has never been the Dems strongpoint and they once again have kicked their own asses

You're right because the democrats personally sat as the judges for this one. Wait, no, actually you're wrong.

I bet you blame the democrats when a bird shits on your car.

The majority of judges in NJ are liberals. No real secret there.

So the only way a ruling like this could happen would be if the democrats controlled the judiciary?

And now a rant with some observations
this is the first time that i have noted a mention of the anti discrimination legislation- essentially, I have a problem problem with the fact that a lot of states are hipocrits, and will vote to give everyone equal rights, then turn around and say that they cant have that "marriage" one- a gay couple marrying another gay person will not effect me in any adverse way, and people poking their way uninvited into others private lives has always irked me also, every time that i see someone against gay marriage saying that it is not tradition, or sanctioned by god etc- I get damn pissed 1- marriage was not even a church sacrament untill the twelth century - The early catholic church WOULD not perform a marriage, as it was a civil matter, the purview of the STATE- they would bless a union, and recognise it as acceptable, which a lot of people cared a lot for, and in truth I am unaware of any documented case of a same sex union, but it was a seperate thing not carried out by the church- of course the christian god will not condone a gay marriage- it is not his JOB to, its the states. 2 why in a country that recognizes seperation of church and state is this even an issue- It seems to me that we are in the same place now as in the 1950's with the whole seperate but equal thing (which was a crock of shit then)- either you recognize that people have rights and are people just like you, or you do not- So the question that america is trying so hard not to struggle with is simple- are gays entitled to rights as are all other citizens or not-

People who oppose same-sex marriages do so under the guise that allowing them to marry gives them "special" rights that others do not share. I'm trying very hard to find out what other group of Americans aren't allowed to marry, but I'm coming up short. Maybe there is a group I'm missing. Hell, I think even inmates on Death Row can get married.

Let's face it - history will treat opposition to same-sex marriage in much the same way it treats the segregationists: as irrelevant and obsolete in their thinking but still vocal enough to influence public policy during their time. Of course, those who oppose same-sex marriage will scream and cry that equating this issue with segregation is comparing apples and oranges, but we can ignore that caterwauling because we are very aware that they're desperately trying to deflect attention away from their own bigotry, which they fail to recognize. Just because a blind man can't see the dirt on his clothes doesn't mean they are clean.

The quicker the "right" can lament the death of their ignorant stance on this issue, the better off we'll all be. However, don't expect this to happen anytime in our lifetimes. We can dream, though.

My only real question is: just what are they so afraid of, anyway?

*Disclaimer: Flame me if you must, I don't care*

The one thing I hate the most in the gay marriage debate is the word "Bigot".

I've a question for you.

Why is it illegal in the United States to practice polygamy or even practice incest between two consenting adults, even if they produce no offspring and both situations involve full consent from both parties?

The answer is rather simple. It's because it goes against mainstream culture and, thusly, considered to be taboo. It's the same with gay marriage. It's not legalized, save for a few states, for the same reason that polygamy and incest aren't legalized. Though most people refuse to acknowledge it, the arguments for legalizing all three are formed on the same premise-- A universal "right" which affects no one but the parties involved is being infringed upon unfairly by the government. I've rarely, if ever, seen someone be called a bigot for opposing polygamy or incest, yet I often see people throw out the term when someone is opposed to gay marriage? Why?

Yes. I know that some people will scream slippery slope, but these same people never get around to noting the similiarities much less answering the question.

Anywho, why not just do as other states have done and put it to vote? Let the people decide what they want instead of having the government do it for them. Seems simple enough, wouldn't you say?

There's one huge difference between homosexuality and polygamy or incest. That difference is that in polygamy and incest there is very often exploitation of some sort going on. As for nonexploitative instances of either, i could care less if someone wants to get freaky on their sister; it's none of my business. I could also care less if someone wants to marry more than one person, since i imagine that in many cases this arrangement could be to the advantage of everyone involved.

I know people don't like to be called bigots, but really, if the only reason you can come up with to condemn an entire class of people is that you're only conforming to some sort of cultural expectations then you are a bigot, and i mean that concerning homosexuality, polygamy and incest (provided all are consensual and no one is being exploited).

Sometimes there is a certain amount of exploitation going on, I won't deny that. However, I'm talking about the cases involving two or more consenting adults. In the United States, these are considered taboo and outlawed using the same reasoning by which gay marriage is outlawed. Therefore, what perplexes me the most, is how people can freely throw out the infamous "B" word without regards to the fact that they're more than likely just as bigotted as the people they try label.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. It's impossible for any society to appease every social group present. There isn't a single society which isn't/hasn't been built on social inequalities. Rather you appease the majority while (Trying) to protect the minority.

Anyway, we could easily decide this debate. Instead of lawmakers and judges trying to regulate laws and set precendents, they should just allow the people to vote and decide what they want.

If the majority of ballots say yes, then legalize gay marriage.
If the majority of ballots say no, then don't.

Do you mind if I ask where you found this information I'm interested myself in the origins of marriage, I've done some google searchs and found a couple of interesting articles but without much detail on how far back marriage began, and in which way the ritual was performed?

Gilda, correct me if I'm wrong but I've read some of you other posts and you have refered to your wife. Is gay marriage legal in your state? I hope I dont seem too forward but if you are married or want to be, what was/ is your main motivation? I ask this being in a non christian hetrosexual relationship. I have been known in the past to dismiss marriage as over rated and just a piece of paper..... ( I could never bring myself to wear white or marry in a church thats for sure). But saying that, I am engaged, and the romance and sybolism of our commitment is the only thing that may eventually drive me to a civil union.

Well, by implying that everyone is a bigot, you haven't really made much of a dent in the notion that the people who oppose gay marriage are bigots.

By a similar extension, the people who oppose gay marriage find themselves in a similar position to the folks who oppose interracial marriage, a position which is clearly bigoted.

Yeah, maybe, but when any minority groups starts demanding equal rights and there isn't really any solid reason to deny them these rights, that's not just a matter of appeasing some fringe groups. You can't appease everyone, but you should at the very least not be arbitrarily dismissive of the desires of people just because you don't like who they have sex with.

Actually, that still wouldn't decide the debate. When was the last time a vote definitively settled anything in the minds of the people voting? Ultimately, you know who won the vote, but that's about it. The people on the losing side will still try to get their needs met, whether they're bigots or not.

Even if we did vote, it wouldn't matter because i'm pretty sure that any kind of referendum, unless it concerns a constitutional amendment, is superceded by the constitution itself.

Maybe we could work it in between commercial breaks on american idol.

I never said that they weren't bigotted. I just said that the people calling others bigots usually do so in a hypocritical fashion.

I don't think people oppose the idea of homosexuality as much as they want to uphold the traditional meaning of marriage. According to the numerous polls I've seen, fewer people oppose homosexuality in general than do those who oppose gay marriage. In a nutshell, people are more open to the idea of homosexuality yet are reluctant to extend marriage to homosexuals; I'd fall into that category.

The Tenth Amendment states that any powers not deligated to the United States government by the Constitution are reserved for the states. Therefore, under my understanding of the previous sentence, the states should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to legalize gay marriage through a voting process. Didn't numerous states do so in 2001?

The 'traditional meaning of marriage' argument is just flat-out rediculous. They pulled that one here in Aus when gay marriage was quietly made illegal not too long ago. Two men marrying each other for love is somehow worse than a woman that marries an elderly man to get his cash when he kicks the bucket? I don't buy it, and it's the same type of nonsense argument that's been used against nearly every minority group at one point or another.

What are you people scared of? Marriages/civil unions have been legalised in many western countries. There's been no horrible collapse of society, no rampaging homos seizing control, no sudden massive epidemic of gay children. Life goes on as before except without these pointless debates.

I have no problem with being called a bigot. Most everyone is a bigot in some form or another. Me, I feel that homosexuals are deviant and that their lifestyle is inferior to mine. Filterton and other libs think that Christians are inferior and stupid for believing in fairy tale. Thus, that makes them bigots too. Throwing out the bigot term is just a common tactic for people with limited communication and rhetorical skills

The crucial point you're missing here is that culture changes. It evolves. The English Language that I'm writing in here isn't the same English Language that was spoken 200 or 100 or even 50 years ago. Cultural notions of what's acceptable and what's not evolve and change--and the trend is toward liberalism. If you take the broad view of humanity, what is considered acceptable is currently a broader category than what has been acceptable in the past.

I know there are exceptions (my Rhino Times-humping friend NCB being a prime example), but by and large in America, homosexuality is acceptable. It's more acceptable now than it's ever been, and it's going to be more and more acceptable as time goes by. The general public opinion is: Gay OK. There are places where that's not entirely true, but if you took a poll of all Americans, that's the result you'd see. So claiming "culture objects to it" is simply inaccurate, and based, I suspect, in some outdated 1950's notion of "culture".

Speaking only for myself, I sincerely hope that the day comes when plural marriage is legalized. I'm not sure I can say that for marriage among blood relations, but I recognize that it's entirely possible that there are people in incestuous relationships out there, and it works for them.

Ha! Looks like we're either neighbors or youre familar with my town. I guess the best I can hope for is that your congressman is Howie Coble. :lol:

Brad Miller is mine :mad:

Did i even ever mention christianity? Do you know that there are whole swaths of christians who think that the homosexuals and their marriage are not only fine, but pretty fucking great? I think you just outed yourself as a member of the "Doesn't know shit about filtherton club", and, probably the "doesn't know shit about christianity club," too."

Anyways, who are you to throw around such accusations? In that g.i. jane thread weren't you talking about how you think women are inferior and stupid or something along those lines? What a shock!! The guy who thinks a woman needs the constant protection of a man thinks homosexual behavior is deviant.

Now, we've all seen your cute little button, but i have news for you: just because you slapped it on a button doesn't make it true. It does seem to be a nice way to take yourself off the hook for your own flawed perspectives. Go on, keep telling yourself that the only reason you get called a bigot is because your such an awesome debater. That's the kind of reasoning you only find in the people with the strongest grasp of logic and argument.

If i could make a button, it would say "Liberal: any thing, person, or policy that NCB doesn't approve of." or "Liberals: personally out to shit on NCB's picnic."

I don't care really, its a non-issue for me, and can't see how this would be different than most liberal married heterosexual couples.

Two incomes, some bad artwork, zero kids.

Really the country has more important issues to worry about than this.

We've debated this subject before and I know youre an anything goes kind of guy. As for the Christianity aspect, youre right, I know very little about Christianity. That may correlate with the fact that I'm not a strong Christian believer. Just a guess though



Never said that I though women are inferior. I just simply stated that I do not think that our society holds the values that reflect that women should be on the frontlines.

Flawed perspectives? How do you figure? I'll put it to you this way: What rights do normal people have that homosexuals do not.

Hit the lights and lock up when you leave

So there are "normal" people and there are homosexuals?

Sounds flawed to me.


edit:
But since you so crudely put it that way....

A GAO report from several years ago identified more than 1,000 benefits that apply to married couples but that are (or may be) denied to gay/lesbian couples in an equally committed monogomous relationship.

It includes Social Security benefits, Veterans benefits, tax policy, employment law (eg. leave policies)......

the full report (pdf file)
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

Not a special bene. Hetheros cant as easily pass on those benes either if they choose to shack up with someone of the same sex.

I could call myself Muslim and not follow a single teaching of Islam. That doesn't make me one, though, now does it? ;)

Read one of my previous posts. I think I already mentioned the fact that most people don't have a problem with homosexuals in general, but they do have a problem with the idea of gay marriage.

Taken from post #20:

Well, you just let me know when you and the rest of the christians have figured out the one true way of christ. Until then, your denomination's version is no more christian than anyone else's.

The mass amount of Christians today know very little about their own religion, relying mainly on what they've been taught in Church (aka, the bare minimum). Most people who denote themselves as Christians can site basic Bible passages or principles or other small feats; Very few of them, however, could go much further than that. The problem is that very nearly anyone can go out and create a new sect of "Christianity" which advocates, for example, the superiority of one master race over all others tomorrow and instantly garner some followers (See, KKK). Somehow, I doubt this was the true teachings of Christ.

Religion is supposed to shape the moral and ethical guidelines of those who follow it. In the case of Christianity and unlike any other major religion (Well, except for maybe Hinduism, to a degree), it's moral and ethical guidelines are shaped by those who follow it. This is why Christianity is so divisive as a religion; No one conforms to a set of guidelines. Of course, the fact that people can shape it to what they want it to be is more than likely the reason it's so popular.

Now, there is one thing which strikes me as odd. Most all of the major (And minor) religions of the world take a hard-nose stand against homosexuality. The one thing I can't understand is how people can come to the conclusion that Christianity condones homosexuality. Nearly every religion in the Mediterranean (sp?) region at the time of Christianity's creation banned homosexuality. Therefore, it'd be a stretch to assume that Christianity would differentiate from the norm-- Especially given the fact that it likes to "Borrow" ideas from other religions.

[/endthreadjack]

Anywho, just let the states decide for themselves. We're allowed to vote on less trivial matters, so why not this?

I think I could come to like New Jersey!

It was just announced to day the the NJ educational system turned down federal funds for sex-education programs that would have to be abstinence-only, and would have forbidden teachers to talk about contraception, among other things. Suddenly New Jersey sounds like it has a head on its shoulders! Now if they could only pretty up the Turnpike a little bit!

This is the first of two pages. Notice the last paragraph in the section I quoted. Shockingly sensible!

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey...760.xml&coll=1

SCOTUS doesn't have jurisdiction to overturn this. The NJSC ruling is based on the New Jersey state constitution.

------------------------------------

And there it is. 15 posts in and we get a PIB argument. This is quicker than usual IL, well done.

Some of the things you say about christianity may be true, i would agree that most christians probably don't spend a lot of time reading the bible, though that's just speculation. The problem is that you need a whole lot more than the bible if you want to become an expert in christianity. There's boatloads upon boatloads of historical data that you need to take into account as well. The thing about history is that it's highly subjective, and the subjectivity is probably only compounded by the religious connotations in question.

I say all this because i'm fairly certain that you think that you understand the bible, and what christ is all about. What i want to know is how you can be certain.

I think that it also stands to reason that the notion that the bible is the final word on all things christian is a tad myopic. God spoke to people all of the time, if you believe the good book. God told people to do crazy things, things that totally went against the norms of their times. From what i've read about the bible, god doesn't really care about opinion polls, or what the people think god wants from them. What makes you think that your god isn't still actively trying to influence the world?

People are often idiots, especially when it comes to cultural inertia. Miscegenation laws were struck down in 1968 in Loving v. Virginia, and rightly so, not because a majority of people wanted it, but because it was the right thing to do. The majority was wrong.

It wasn't until 1992, 24 years later that polls showed a majority of Americans approving of interracial marriage. Protecting the rights of everyone is more important than catering to the prejudices of any group, even when it's the majority.

Well, it's a perfectly legimate question and, if you answered truthfully, you'd find that there is no difference between the three. I'll continue to use the argument for so long as it works.

If someone had a religous faith based on the Bernstein Bears, and formed their political decisions around the oversimplified, moralistic teachings of the bears, I'd think that someone was stupid, too. That doesn't make me a bigot, that makes me a realist. It's fine to live your life by a philosophy, that's your right. When yuor philosophy starts to trample the rights of others, it ceases to be your philosophy, and becomes a tyranical doctrine.

---------------------------------------------------

No, same-sex marriage isn't recognized legally where I now live. Grace and I were married religiously in a Unitarian church in California, and later had a second ceremony for her family at their family shrine. We have both a Christian and a Shinto marriage, but not a legal one.

In California we were Registered Domestic Partners, which, starting in 2005, grants all the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as marriage within the state. RDPs were initiated in 1999, then upgraded in late 2004.

For us, marriage is about declaring our love for each other and pledging to forever join with each other in front of our family and God, becoming partners in mind, body, and spirit.

Keep in mind that there are two types of marriage, religious and civil. The laws and legal rulings address solely the civil version. Churches are already free to marry or not marry whomever they choose.

-------------------------------------------------

I'm not a bigot. Neither are my wife or sister, my brother, and so far as I know, most of my colleagues. I think perhaps your perspective might be skewed a bit by your being a bigot yourself to the point that you want to justify that by trying to find it in everyone. Either way, it isn't justified.

I'm curious, though. How is my lifestyle inferior to yours?

I so enjoy it when people tell me what I believe based on one piece of information like my political leanings or religious affiliation. I'm a liberal, but I don't think Christians are inferior because, hey, I'm also a Christian. There are a good number of us around.

Not all liberals, as you seem to imply here, are atheists, agnostics or non-theists.

Nah, there's a difference between believing that Christianity is false and believing that Christians are inferior for believing in it. I've known a good number of people who weren't Christians but nevertheless had no animosity and no feeling of superiority towards Christians. My sister, the Buddhist, for example.

-------------------------------------

Did you know that the vast majority of homosexuals are born to heterosexual parents? It's true. Clearly having heterosexual parents is the main cause of homosexuality. Oh sure, most kids come out hetero, but why take the chance? Let's ban heterosexual marriage today!

Soon, they will have homosexual sex classes given the same weight as normal sex ed classes, which in turn means we'll see more of this shit around our children.

Given to MA middle school children, complete with homosexual bar pick up joints:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2.../page_2425.jpg
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...ot/page_33.jpg

Welcome to liberalism. Enjoy your stay

I call bullshit. If you're telling us that that document was ever handed out by an officially sanctioned school program, then I just flat don't believe you. You're either pulling it out of your ass, or you're quoting some other right-winger who pulled it out of their ass.

Cite me a source and prove me wrong.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Nice. Let's rephrase that for a second and see how silly it sounds:

What rights do heterosexuals have that normal people do not?

It's easy to throw those words "deviant" and "normal" around. I'm just curious, do you understand that you're talking about real people with real lives who live and love and have families just like you do, or are you not aware of the very real harm attitudes like yours bring to the people you are degrading here?

First, let's start with, oh, say, the right to marry the person we love, with the 1000+ rights that go with that. In more than 20 states, homosexuals can be discriminated against in employment, housing, adoption, familial relationship, divorce proceedings, public educational institutions, etc.

All we are talking about here is guaranteeing that people are treated equally under the law, which is one of the core values of this country.

If I have time I'll try to find it. What had happened is that they were passing this out at a sex ed health fair.

I can't believe you actually posted that. Try living in reality for a few minutes.

Thanks! I will :thumbsup:

Anyway, NCB had a great point... The moral subjectivity of the law.

Our laws are based around the dominant consensus of the population... This system NEEDS the ability for self-correction over time, because the dominant moral view shifts as time passes.

In more liberal countries such as Canada, the dominant moral view is that homosexuality, and the marriage of these people is perfectly acceptable. And thus, Canada has legalized it.

The incest/polygamy debate is a red herring... Just because the dominant moral view has evolved to accept homosexuality, doesn't mean people still don't find these things repugnant. It's used by anti-gay advocates to scare people into thinking that their views in support of same sex marriage will somehow magically bring these things into the realm of acceptable practice.

So in closing, if you don't like the law where you live, and same-sex marriage is of importance for you... You can't make people believe what you want them to, you will need to go somewhere that shares your ideological stance... Canada is an accepting country.

Thank you Gilda

1. Your slippery slopes are as hilarious as they are implausible.

2. I seriously, seriously doubt the legitimacy of that "pamphlet", given the prolific use of cursing and general language used. This is something, at best, that would be in a planned parenthood clinic. Maybe. Show us proof that this nonsense is actually going to middle school children, above your say-so. I think you've either taken us for fools, or someone else in your line of thinking has taken you for one.

3. "homosexual bar pick up joints"? you mean the health clinics listed at the bottom?

Remember, folks- don't feed the trolls.

Your opinions are your own, but you would do well to change the wording of your rhetoric so that it employs, and conveys, a bit more sense and logic, so it sounds less like the ramblings of a super-conservative crazy person.

Because right now, your wording is outrageous to the point of humorous- yet very, very sad.

If its authentic then most likely it was just some asshole who thought it would be a funny thing to hand out.

--------------------------------

I'm really not surprised by this, but you are wrong here.

Beastiality* is primarily committed by males with female animals, typically smaller farm animals such as sheep or goats, with a smaller number being females with male animals, usually large dogs.

Now, I could argue by analogy that if we allow heterosexuals to marry, this will inevitably lead to bestiality, because bestiality is primarily a heterosexual activity. I won't do that because it's ridiculous--animals aren't humans.

Incest occurs primarily between brother/sister, father/daughter, or mother/son. Look it's another heterosexual institution. If we're going to ban a form of marriage based on this, it should be the form most closely related, and that would be heterosexual marriage.

Personally, I think incest laws do need a review, but that it should be a separate debate not related to this one because different issues are involved.

Polygamy primarily takes the form of polygyny, and to my knowledge this is the only form ever in widespread practice in the US. Once again, it's primarily a heterosexual institution. If we're going to use this to restrict marriage rights, it should apply to heterosexual marriage.

Again, this is worthy of a separate debate, but doesn't belong in this one.

[satire]You know, the more and more I think about it, the less I want to be associated with you heterosexuals and your deviant heterosexual practices.[/satire]

To be clear, the above was satire to point out the absurdity of the PIB argument, not meant to be taken at face value.

*I know this wasn't mentioned. I just wanted to throw it in for free. Three for the price of two.

Equal protection under the law is a tricky thing, as it doesn't extend to all groups in this country. More specifically, homosexuals are protected under the Constitution but the issue of sexual orientation and marriage is deemed a suspect classification. By their nature, suspect classes are discriminatory but very few people here ever argue them.

No one mentioned bestiality.

This is incorrect.

Our society doesn't differentiate things considered to be taboo into a hetero/homo category. Rape is rape; Incest is incest; Polygamy is polygamy (Though it can be divided into polygyny and polyandry) etc.

The Mormom church practices both polygyny and polyandry, if you didn't know.

I didn't dare make an absolute statement. Rather I posed a question which seems to be impossible to answer. Either that or you just don't want to answer it.

Youre right, I posted the wrong one. Here ya' go

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2.../page_2829.jpg

:)

Okay, but who's "they", and for how long? I will eat my god damned hat if this was a handout from an official, school district-sanctioned, public-funded program. Cite me a source. Prove me wrong.

Failing that, what you have here is another baseless right-wing wack-job smear attempt. It plays to the fascist fringe, because it proves their view of things, but I can practically guarantee you it didn't happen the way you appear to be saying it did.

Of course, you've been vague enough that anything you find won't be entirely inconsistent with what you've said about it...

Theres only so much you can chalk up to "right wing smear jobs". Well, actually not, for if you prefer to bury your head in the sand than anything that contricits your ideaology can be considered as such.

About ten minutes of searching and I have the story of the booklet NCB is posting. It was produced as a guide for sexually active gay and bisexual males over 18 by the AIDS Action Committee to promote safe sexual practices. It was never part of any school program. There was a conference at Brookline High School sponsored by GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) to discuss how to help gay students deal with bullying and teasing, attended by educators and open to members of the various gay straight alliance clubs. Outside education groups were rented tables for the conference, one of these Fenway Community Health, which inadvertantly brought the booklets along with other materials to the conference. The booklets were displayed on the table, but there's no evidence right now that any child took one.

So let's see, it wasn't part of any curriculum, it happened at a conference and not in any class, the booklets aren't designed for teens anyway, were not mean to be distributed to them, were brought as a mistake, and there's no evidence any child actually took one. School officials are saying they don't believe any booklets went home with kids.

As a homosexual and a former co teacher of a Life Skills and Family Planning middle school class, I'd join your outrage if this was actually a part of a school curriculum or in any way meant to promote sexual activity among kids. It wasn't, wasn't intended to be, was a violation of conference guidelines, and may not have actually made it into the hands of any students.

This is nothing more than the anti-gay crowd trying to capitalize on an innocent, harmless mistake.

Linky.

........................

what jurisdiction does SCOTUS have over a state constitutional matter?

At some point, the feds will have to address why homosexual "marriages" arent recognized in other states while traditional ones are.

What jurisdiction? Supreme jurisdiction.

Edit: The SCOTUS won't hear the case, simply because they've already taken the stance that sexual orientation and gay rights is better left as a suspect classification.

Actually, I did. The institutions you mention have no relationship to homosexuality because--surprise--they aren't homosexual in nature. The question before us is whether same-sex couples in committed loving monogamous relationships should be permitted to legally marry.

If you compare and contrast the issues you raise with homosexuality and heterosexuality, they have more to do with the latter, and nothing to do with the former other than the desire of opponents of homosexual rights to link them for political gain.

Gilda

poses an interesting case with regards to the full faith and credit clause, though I fail to see how SCOTUS can make that call when it's the responsibility of congress.

Oh my god, NCB, if that's true, that means that teachers were actually being open and honest about sex with their students. OH NO!!!!

And all you really know is that something happened concerning homosexual education that conservative parent's groups don't like.

And you still haven't shown us where you got that pamphlet. I wonder why.

The SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over a state court, only the lower federal courts.

BTW, what the fuck does anything ncb is talking about have to do with anything?

First off, did you even bother to read my post-- At all???

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that you're basing your argument off a false premise. Twice I've mentioned suspect classifications and how they relate to gay marriage yet twice you've ignored it. Per chance, do you know what a suspect classification is?

Yes, I realize this. My point was that SCOTUS has the FINAL say in the matter, if they so choose (As their decision overrides that of every other court in the land).

Sure, but it would have no effect on the state in which the marriage occurred.

Gilda

which means absolutely squat unless, or until, the NJ government takes the matter to a federal court. Until such time, this is a state matter only and SCOTUS has absolutely no jurisdiction or authority over the matter.



SCOTUS cannot 'choose' to have a say in the matter unless the NJ AG petitions the federal courts, starting with the district court for their state.

Erm... I was referencing post #59. I should have made it clear that I was speaking to Gilda.

Once again, I realize this. SCOTUS is not obligated to hear any case and, up to this point, they have made it clear that they won't take any such cases. So yes, SCOTUS can 'choose' to have a say in the matter.

1. It has to do with govt forcing values down our childrens throats. You know, stuff that you really hate

2. Gilda posted the actual article on the incident where the pamphlets came from. The story is nearly two years old and when it came out I saved the pamphlet imgs. Alsom I mistakeningly cited another similar incident.

Since when is telling someone what something is "forcing a value down someone's throat?"

When less than 10% of the genpop is homosexual, teaching our kids about rimming, fisting, and other popular homosexual practices is doing just that. Please spare me and the rest of the board with a knee jerk "hetheros do it too" reply

no problem.

It's not about an obligation or not. SCOTUS can't just say 'sorry guys, NJ gay marriage case is too damn important for you guys to handle, we're taking the case'. It's never worked that way and it's not supposed to. I realize what you're saying, that they can choose to hear it or not, but they can only make that choice once a request for cert has been made to them.

NCB, what is the point of post 55? What could you possibly be saying there other than "Gay and lesbian material should not ever be shown to middle school and high school students because it might contaiminate their perfect straight little brains and turn them into deviant homosexuals."

Your point about the pamphlet is irrelevant in this whole discussion. It was brought there by accident. It wasn't intended for kids OF EITHER high school or middle school age to see. There is no evidence that any kids say it or picked it up. You're arguing it like there is some massive gay community conspiracy to get kids to see how much fun talking dirty and using sex toys and going to gay clubs is when they're nice and young so they can be influenced into becoming gay. I hope you realize what a completely ridiculous point that is. It was done in error. The INTENDED audience for those pamphlets is more than equipped to handle the information, as would be a similarly phrased pamphlet for straight college-aged kids.

Gay people are not trying to convert everyone to be gay, as some people are apparently terrified of them doing. They just want to be allowed the same things that everyone else is allowed and want to make sure that other gay people are comfortable with their identity. What a totally ridiculous thing to want.

Absolutely. It's a legal term that means basically that when the government writes laws that favor one group of individuals over another, the disfavored group may be a "suspect classification" and the government carries the burden of proving that such discrimination has a compelling state interest, under strict scrutiny for race, and intermediate scrutiny for gender.

In other words, if you're going to write laws that discriminate, you have to prove that they're necessary. It's a limitation on the power of the government to discriminate against minorities with little or no political power.

not to be knee jerky, but do heteros practice those or not? They do, although I'm pretty sure that those are subjects that shouldn't be taught in schools.

and it would have to be a pretty large compelling interest to get around the 14th amendment, though we've never had a SCOTUS with the balls to take the really hard, but necessary, cases to support inalienable rights for all.

For clarification, the best current evidence is that 1.5-2% of females are exclusively homosexual, and 3-4% of males. It might be a bit higher than that, but the low end is the lower boundary.

Gilda

NCB, this is exactly what I mean. Please read the article before you start spouting off nonsense. NO ONE had intended to teach ANYONE'S kids about ANY of that stuff. They were brought BY ACCIDENT and NO KIDS picked them up. An embarassing and awkward incident, sure. But it was in no way a deliberate attempt by the gay community to indoctrinate minors on the glory of things that, chances are, most of them have already found on the internet anyway.

It was not done to teach 11 year olds how to fist and where to find a guy to have sex with. It was a mistake, and it's one that has literally nothing to do with the gay marriage conversation. Let it rest.

P.S. It's spelled "heterosexual," not "hetherosexual."

Well yeah... I was never debating that.

Correct! I bolded the pertinent part of your post. As we all know, states have an immediate interest in marriages. SCOTUS has already (Indirectly) stated that the issues of sexual orientation and gay marriage fall under the veil of suspect classifcations and thusly states can refuse to grant homosexuals the right to marry if they so choose. It's discrimination within the constitution and one of the many "Social injustices" upon which our society is built.

There is no "Equal protection under the law" when it comes to gay marriage.

Edit: Most of the laws that discriminate aren't necessary. They're just "There". The state only needs to prove that it has a compelling interest in the issue at hand.

On a side note, state supreme court decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court if original federal jurisdiction would've been possible. As this is clearly and exclusively a state constitution issue that doesn't impact any federal laws, it could not have been brought in federal court and thus cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Didnt know the figures. Thanks :thumbsup:

Seriously, would you expect any other kind of response when caught with their pants down? The fact remains that the orginizers knew that younger children would be milling about and yet they choose to display it anyways. They only got "concerned and remoseful" after they were caught.

Everyone bust out your tin foil hats! The gays are coming to pervert our children!

That explanation doesn't even make sense. Gays, contrary to what you obviously believe, are not so completely devoid of moral compass and common sense that they wouldn't know that passing out a pamphlet like that at a school event would be inappropriate. If, shockingly, they are so stupid, it is still totally irrational to generalize the actions of a few idiots who did something stupid to an entire class of people, most of whom would have a serious problem with showing material like that to middle and high school students.

Isn't the whole Massachutes pamphlet thing grossly off-topic?

No, because one of the arguments against the homosexual redefinition of marriage is the bagggage that would ultimately come with it. This is an example of that. Unless of course you believe that the homosexual community will stop with the redefinition

Well... I'm not in favor of gay marriage, but you're a making a stretch if you're equating the pamphlet incident to some sort of indication that homosexuals are actively trying to change people's sexual orientation.

Or am I missing something?

NCB, I'm not going to lie.

If on a gay marriage/gay rights issue IL doesn't agree with you and can't see your point, you can safely assume that you're on your own.

I can accept that.

However, the homosexual redefinition of marriage debate boils down to govt acceptance of their lifestyles. Thus, you can logically conclude that they will insist on homosexual issues in the public school system's sex education curriculm. Do you not agree with that?

Of course I agree with that, and I expect it will be limited in much the same way heterosexual sex education is limited. I'm not at all sure what sex education program you or your kids went through but mine was pretty much limited to, "Use a condom. Use birth control." As many straight couples as gay couples engage in oral sex, anal sex, rimming, mutual masturbation, fisting, toy usage, bondage, dress up, etc. They're just things people do in their bedroom and you can guarantee that none of them are taught or talked about in sex ed at schools. Sex ed in schools is mostly a "This is how things down there work, use a condom" routine. I see no reason why that would change if gay marriage and culture were more prevalent.

You seem to assume that the gay community has an entirely different set of cultural norms compared to the straight community about what is and is not acceptable for kids to hear about. I don't know where you got that idea.

Nope. SCOTUS has not addressed the status of marriage rights for homosexuals in any way, so we don't know what their view on it is.

I think you're not quite understanding how a "suspect classification" works--it creates a burden on the state to prove that a law represents a compelling state interest, not simply that there is a state interest in the issue.

I agree that it's a social injustice, but SCOTUS has yet to rule on whether marriage as a civil right extends to homosexuals.

Marriage, is, however, a civil right in the US. SCOTUS didn't restrict that right to heterosexuals in Loving, so the issue there is still open.

Gilda

To be fair to NCB, I do often get the impression that the 'gay community' - in general (please note the emphasis) - has much more relaxed sexual mores. It's plausible to me that they might be proportionately more likely to favor pamphlets such as the one NCB displayed.

To be fair to Frosstbyte and every other dissenting voice, a single pamphlet incident doesn't even come close to making NCB's case.

And it still seems like a big leap to draw the conclusion that gay marriage will make these pamphlets acceptable to the status quo. Sounds like a slippery slope to me. And the thing about slippery slopes: if they really exist, then there's NO safe place to rest. You might as well restrict marriage to Christians, for if marriage under the wrong or no God is acceptable, then why isn't polygamy? Neither "polygamy is different because x, y, and z" nor "polygamy is also okay" actually does anything for the anti-same sex marriage side.

Nevermind that we make and stick to arbitrary standards all the time.

"If we raise the drinking age to 21, what's stopping it from going to 22 or 25?"

"Um, people who don't want it that high, that's what."

Slippery slope isn't always a fallacy. It's reasonable when the person making the claim can show a logical connection between A and predicted subsequent outcome B and provide evidence that this is likely.

The problem is that the closest you can usually get is possible, which really doesn't cut it.

Would this have been okay if the teachers added the phrase "and we must remember that they gays are gross" to the end of every explanation? I'm just trying to figure out how you can believe that the mere act of telling kids what fisting is(if they have the internet they probably already know) is an act of forcing values. Do you have kids? Do they know what fisting is? If they know what fisting is, are they also gay? Can you know what fisting is and be a completely normal hetero person? Can you learn about the different ways that all people have sex and still be a hetero person?

My wife's sister married a young man who later went to Iraq. While he was there she got pregnant with another man's baby. Before they could get divorced, he went on his second deployment and was killed by an IED within weeks of coming home where he hoped to finalize the divorce and marry his new girlfriend.

Guess who collects a check every month now and won't marry the freak she is dating because she will lose the benefits.

Benefits go to the wrong person all the time. It is just that it is too easy to sit on a moral high horse and decide that two homosexuals can't be as in love as heterosexuals and that our civilization will end if gays are afforded the same rights as the rest of us.

If Tom and Bill or Janet and Chrissy love each other give them same rights to benefits and decisions as my wife and I have.

No, I don't, because that's a totally unfounded assertion of asinine proportions containing no logic, whatsoever.

First of all, amending the definition of "marriage", or allowing for a secondary term to be created, to grant the same rights and privileges to same-sex couples as hetero couples, would mean that the government is finally recognizing the legitimacy of the rights of individuals to be unified through civil law, without regard for the sexes of the two people.

Every piece of legislation which has expanded the rights of individuals, has done so because the government recognized the legitimacy of that right.

At points in history, the government has recognized that men who do not own land should have the same right to vote as those who do, that people have the same right not to be slaves or the property of another person regardless of their skin color, that those ex-slaves (men only) should then be given the same right to vote as white men, that people who could not afford an attorney would be given the same rights and privileges as those who could afford them for representation in court, and eventually that women should be afforded the same rights to vote as men already had.

This is just another step in the growth and maturation of a society which progressively recognizes that all people- ALL PEOPLE- should be granted the same protections under the law, and the same rights and privileges the laws afford them.

Second of all, humanity is rife with examples of some yahoo or small group of yahoos who do stupid shit that messes up the image of the larger subculture they claim to be a part of or represent, who act on their own and do not in any way represent the general viewpoint of the rest of the subculture they identify with.

It seems in this case, however, that any time a person who is gay says x, y, or z about anything, or does anything, you take it as "the word" of *"the gays". You then take one random instance of a pamphlet sitting on one table at a G/L/B/TG conference and extrapolate that it's 1. public school curriculum for middle school students (which was patently false, despite your initial assertion that it was a fact) and 2. that "the gays" are trying to pervert "our kids" with their "homosexual agenda", teaching 12 year olds about rimjobs and fisting.

In conclusion: time erodes those opinions that withhold rights from the people of America. Time creates better understanding, allows for education to reach those still clutching at the issue by the puppet-strings of ignorance handed down to them, and sees to it that the rights and privileges of every individual are equal, and guaranteed by law.

*Note: Use of quotations around certain phrases is used to recreate the language used by the side i'm debating against, and are not my intentional or normal lexicon on this subject.

Bravo, analog, and well said. :icare:

We are all in a big fat group of people headed towards tomorrow. Some people are bound to be in the front of the group, and some people are bound to be in the back. By their very definition, liberals are always at the front, and conservatives are always at the back. Neither is always right or wrong, as they exist as opposing forces that keep the ultimate flow of the group steady...the thing is, that liberals always get there first.

Add my applause to Analog for the clarity of his analysis.

' how many years can some people exist
Before they're allowed to be free?

The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

An extraordinary event has occured! How do we celebrate this event? Obviously, it can't involve virgins. :)

For once I actually see myself agreeing with Ustwo....... :hmm:

Anyway... supporting it or not are some of you actually going to lose sleep over it? Is it that big of a deal? Homosexuality isnt going to go away if the laws dont pass. Your kids will still end up finding out about it eventually.

Let them be, let them have a civil union or a marriage or become life partners, whatever! Your lives will still go on, I promise!

Can we please stop fighting now and just be happy? (No Sage) OK, well I tried... carry on.

I wanted to respond to this earlier, but this is the first chance I've had to get in here since this thread exploded.

First let me assure you that I have no intention of flaming you. I think you bring up good points that are worthy of discussion.

People often share similar viewpoints for exceptionally different reasons. Allow me to give you an example if I can find one that makes sense. Let's use the historical example of the abolitionists. Some abolitionists argued that slavery was wrong from a moral standpoint, claiming that the enslavement of any person or group of people is and was unjust. Others argued that slavery gave the South an unfair economic advantage but had no problem with laws that treated black Americans as less than citizens. Within historical context, our society views the second group as racists, even though they favored an end to slavery.

Now, you argue against gay marriage under the same reasoning for maintaining the illegality of polygamy and incest. I can understand why you would argue this and while I vehemently disagree, I can at least see where you are coming from. However, others are arguing against equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians because they think homosexuals are deviants and not "normal". They piggyback on the arguments of others because they have nothing outside their own bigotry on which to state their case. They're bigots, plain and simple.

As to why the term "bigot" is not used to identify those against polygamy and incest I would say: polygamy and incest are lifestyle choices. One is not born a polygamist nor an incesticist (I may have made that word up). There is evidence - thoughly hotly debated - that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Therefore, we are placing limits on what they may or may not do based upon something over which they have no choice. Marginalizing and castigating a group of people based upon a genetic trait is bigotry. Of course, many people firmly believe that homosexuality is a choice, so that makes the argument moot. Until there is definitive proof that homosexuality is either a choice or a trait, this argument will continue.

As far as putting it to a vote, the only issue I have with this is that rights are rarely granted to protect the majority. They are there to ensure that the politically powerless are not treated unjustly by the politically powerful.

Protecting the minority is central to the ideas present in the Bill of Rights.

Thank you, JJ, for pointing out something that is so incredibly important to us, whether we realize it or not.

[MOD EDIT, please see a few posts down]


That aside, if the legislature chooses to make civil unions I can easily see it getting overturned by the supreme court. Brown v. Board of Education and Bolling v. Sharp outlaw seperate but equal laws.

Thus I believe givien 1-5 years gay marriage will be legal in NJ. And hopefully the rest of the states will follow suit within 10 years of that.