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

[Gilda]

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

[Elphaba]

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

[SecretMethod70]

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:

The distinction won't matter within NJ per se-- since the Court said that whatever the union is called, it must provide all the rights and benefits of marriage -- but it could have implications nationwide. A gay marriage bill from the legislature would open up the possibility that the federal government and other states would have to recognize same-sex marriages from NJ under the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution. A civil union bill would not have such ramifications. Massachusetts has a law barring out of state couples from marrying within state if their home state would not recognize the union; New Jersey does not. Hence, gay marriage advocates were eager for a definitive pro-marriage decision and, despite what they say to the press, surely a bit dissappointed at this ruling.

Chief Justice Deborah Poritz, joined by Justices Long and Zazzali, filed a concurring and dissenting opinion. Their opinion called for full marriage rights (thus the concurring part) including the right to the title "marriage" (the dissenting part).

[Lady Sage]

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

[filtherton]

Sweet. That's great.

[snowy]

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.

[CaliLivChick]

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. =)

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by onesnowyowl

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.

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.

[NCB]

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

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by NCB

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.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by filtherton

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.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by NCB

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?

[Fire]

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-

[JumpinJesus]

Originally Posted by Fire

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?

[Infinite_Loser]

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

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.

*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?

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

polygamy&incest argument

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).

[Infinite_Loser]

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.

[Mrs Master]

Originally Posted by Fire

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-

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?

Originally Posted by Gilda

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

Three down, 47 to go.

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.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

[Infinite_Loser]

Originally Posted by filtherton

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

[hulk]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

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 '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.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by filtherton

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).

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

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

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?

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.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by ratbastid

(my Rhino Times-humping friend NCB being a prime example)

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.

Brad Miller is mine

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by NCB

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

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."

[Ustwo]

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.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by filtherton

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."

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

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.

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.

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."

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

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by NCB

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

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

[NCB]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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.

[Infinite_Loser]

Originally Posted by filtherton

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."

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

Originally Posted by ratbastid

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".

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:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

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.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

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

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.

[Infinite_Loser]

Originally Posted by filtherton

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?

[ratbastid]

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

State spurns federal sex ed money
Objecting to abstinence mandates, Jersey forgoes $800,000
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
BY CAROL ANN CAMPBELL
Star-Ledger Staff

The Corzine administration said "thanks, but no thanks" to federal abstinence education money yesterday, saying new rules will not let teachers talk about contraception. Teachers also must say sex within marriage is the "expected standard of human sexual activity."

A letter yesterday by state health and education officials to the federal government says the strings attached to the money contradict the state's own sex education and AIDS education programs.

The state has taken the money, about $800,000 each year, since 1997. But state officials said new federal rules give them far less flexibility in creating such programs than in past years.

"Some of the elements required are inconsistent and violate our own educational standards," said Health Commissioner Fred M. Jacobs.

New Jersey is the fourth state so far to reject the abstinence education money, after California, Pennsylvania and Maine.

Education Commissioner Lucille Davy also signed the letter, which was sent to U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael Levitt. The letter says the state will not apply for abstinence money for the 2006-2007 school year.

The state had distributed the money to nine community organizations, such as the Camden County chapter of the American Red Cross and Catholic Community Services, which serves Newark, Irvington and South Orange. The groups run programs, some in schools, for about 11,000 children age 10 through 14.

In the past, Jacobs said the state adhered to several, but not all, of the elements in the Title V federal abstinence education program. For instance, the state adhered to section C, which teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. It supported section G, which teaches young people how to reject sexual advances, and section H, which teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.

But Jacobs said new guidelines require the organizations to follow all sections, including one that teaches that monogamous in marriage is the only expected standard and that sex outside of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.

"Monogamy is not a bad idea, but having the government of New Jersey dictate these things for families is not something we wish to do," Jacobs said. "It isn't the function of state government to create standards (for sexual activity)."

[Gilda]

Originally Posted by NCB

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

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?

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

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

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.

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?

[Gilda]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

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

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.

[Infinite_Loser]

Originally Posted by Gilda

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

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.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by NCB

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

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.

[Gilda]

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

Originally Posted by Mrs Master

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by NCB

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.

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?

Filterton and other libs think that Christians are inferior and stupid for believing in fairy tale.

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.

Thus, that makes them bigots too. Throwing out the bigot term is just a common tactic for people with limited communication and rhetorical skills

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.

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

Originally Posted by hulk

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.

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!

[NCB]

Originally Posted by ratbastid

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.

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:




Welcome to liberalism. Enjoy your stay