Legalized Gay Marriage in NJ? Decision TOMORROW!!!

[ScifiBiJen]

Tomorrow (Wednesday, at 3pm) the New Jersey Supreme Court will announce its decision on gay marriage. If you live in NJ, come rally at the Justice Complex in Trenton. Everyone, everyone will be there with news cameras taking it all in and showing the rest of the country.

This is so big. There's no guarantee how this will go, but I've heard a lot of optimism.

History could be made tomorrow. Will it be a step backward, or a leap forward?
Please please, watch your televisions, listen to your radios, or join us at the rally!!

[Long Duck Dong]

if you remove all social conditioning, religion and * old boys stick together *....there is a damm good chance it will go thru

sadly, legal law doesn't change social opinions ...and no matter if they legalise gay marriage or not... the social biased against bisexuals will never go away
here in new zealand, the gay marriage opponents are still trying to have the law reversed, despite the fact that none of their * fears * have actually happened

in new zealand we have prostituation legalised and gay marriage ( under the civil union act ) is legal.....and despise the outcry from the do gooders, religious and nrrow minded bigots....the country has not become a cesspit of sexual molestation, beastility, rape and other sexual crimes... however, the crimes against young boys by religious people is showing a increasing raise as crimes that date back to up to 30 years, are increasingly appearing in court
the most noticable fact with those cases, is they are NEVER called gay sex crimes, but if a bisexual is convicted of a criminal sexual act, it is called a gay sex crime.... sighs

[Tigerguy193]

The court has ruled that the state legislature has 180 days to either legalize gay marriage or create civil unions.

This is good because the far right won't be able to say that the out-of-control courts are forcing gay marriage on the people.

However, don't hold out a lot of hope. We still have over two years left of President Bush being able to nominate someone to the Supreme Court. Also, Republicans are gaining in the polls so there no guarantee that the Dems will get either house of Congress.

We need something to change in this country. The last major civil rights battle took decades. And it was an issue of the majority enacting policies against the objections of the minority.

Gay marriage is a case of a minority trying to enact change despite the objections of the majority. Those are two completely different situations.

[Tynary]

the Uk legalised gay civil unions but they say it is nt marriage ie they r trying to be gd peeps but really they r mean.
i support gay marriage and am glad it is spreading.
wen the hell r they gonna legalise bi marriage. it does sound alot like multi marriage tho so i can c the problems.
suck sorrow and confusion there is 4 us.

[ScifiBiJen]

To clarify Tynary's comment on the verdict:

ALL, let me repeat: ALL of the same rights given to heterosexual marriage now apply for same-sex civil unions.
It's "exactly" the same as a regular marriage... except that you can't call it a marriage.

The state legislature has 180 days to figure out what to call this level of civil union. It's a lot of "separate but equal" nonsense right now.

So this is a step forward. We certainly didn't lose anything today and same-sex couple did gain a lot of rights within the state of NJ... but there's still some distance to go.

[Tynary]

precisely.

um do u think they will legalise bi marriage some day?

*sigh/tear* probs long after I'm dead and I'm only f***ing 18.

[sammie19]

To all intents they have in the UK tynary. Its called Civil Partnership but marriage is what it is and gives u the rights of any married couple.

[canuckotter]

<3 Canada. :tong:

Just a hopeful thought for everyone else out there in the wild world. :)

[Tynary]

I guess ur right.
nt that big on marriage anyways i just want the right. for bi marriages as well.

[JohnnyV]

Congratulations!

[ScifiBiJen]

um do u think they will legalise bi marriage some day?

What is "bi marriage"? You mean polygamy/polyandry?

It doesn't matter what orientation you are... it's which gender you want to marry: the same as yours or different.

And as was said on here a long while ago (don't remember by whom) "It doesn't take a huge amount of legal re-wording to marriage from 'man and woman' to 'spouse and other spouse'. It'll take a HUGE HUGE amount to change it to include Multiple spouses.... and that's not in the cards anytime soon."


Congratulations!
Thanks!!

[diehrd8]

I am curious why marriage is a phrase that must be used by gay couples ?

I mean to call it a civil rights movment is silly when there rights in a civil union equil that of hetro couples that are married .

There is another underlying issue people are not being told,and the hype over the term civil union not being good enough is based on a completly different reason.

If Gay people (Or Bi) Want to join they can in several states by a civil union,,This gives them exactly the same rights as a married couple .. SO WHY push for the wording of "Marriage" ? ? ? I can tell you why if you can not see it.

It is being sought so the church would be put in a posistion that forces them to wed gay people even though it is against there beleifs...It would be a crime for a church to say NO we wont marry you and this is the reason the word "marriage" is being sought..

Why is it ok for Gay's to impose there ways on Church going people ? But not the other way around ? Why is it necessary at all to push for the word marriage ? ? ? If not to attack the church's ? ? ? ?

I am Bi , However I am also respectfull of all people and there view on the world,And find the push for the term "Marriage" as offensive to those who are Religious as it is for them to disallow gay's equil rights..

Differences are FACTUAL,,Civil rights are designed to protect all equilly under the law and NOT impose ones beliefe system over that of another...And remember the people who are church going or religious are a majority of Americans,You can never expect government to support calling a gay union marriage and making it a law to be enforced...Not in our life time so just accept the gains which are equill to marriage without the word marriage and move on with life and enjoy equill rights ....

[Enoll]

Congratulations NJ!
Atleast it's something.

[anne27]

It's a step in the right direction and something for all of us here to cheer about! :bigrin: :2cents: :flag3: :tong:

[Centennial80015]

Here's a thought. Can you be legally married and have a civil union?
Since it isn't termed marriage, does it count for polygamy?

[FSJeepguy]

As a resident of NJ I have absolutely no problem with this issue. The state/federal government needs to stay out of our bedrooms completely.

Saw this morning on CNN that former govenor of our fine state is getting in line to marry his gay lover. Now that'll help him sell books! While I have no problem with him being gay I can say he was a terrible governor. Typical NJ politico, lied and cheated his way to the top and got caught. He never would have come out if he hadn't been caught giving his former boyfriend a very well paying job in which he was unqualified.

Just my :2cents:

[Herbwoman39]

I am curious why marriage is a phrase that must be used by gay couples ?

I mean to call it a civil rights movment is silly when there rights in a civil union equil that of hetro couples that are married .

Remember the civil rights movement in the 60's? Remember segregation? Blacks were "seperate but equal". (scoffs) Yeah, right.

Any separation does not make for an equal society.

I'll admit that there may be some people who want to force the Christian church to accept gay marriages and perform them. However, I strongly believe that it is very detrimental to becomming integrated within society to allow the notion that "separate but equal" is the same as equal.

[Tynary]

indeed i completely agree. u kno there was a multiple civil union performed in holland. This man and two women wanted to marry. I'm not sure if they were bi or just wanted polymonogomy but they were happy together. multiple marriage not legal in Holland but civil partnership is. cool huh. Having the word civil union seems silly. giving it another name is just trying to take the achievment away in some way. a marriage is a civil union. i mean if an atheist gets 'married' its called a marriage and I bet peeps wud still call it a marriage if they got a civil union.
I think gays should push for the term marriage. seperate but equal is silly u r so right.
The prejudice of the church is old fashioned and just plain mean. there is no reason for it. if it was part of my beliefs to go around killing people it doesn't make it right and should not be allowed therefore just cas some peeps have a belief that gays should not call it marriage r the same. they r nt right just cas their religion says so. I'm nt saying everything they believe is wrong i try to be open minded but in that aspect yeah their belief is wrong.

[diehrd8]

Let me show ya in a simple way why "marriage" will not be used ..

Murder is against the law,so is anamial sacrifice as well as many other things some religions on our planet practice.

Freedom of religion in the USA is guranteed under our constitution,Therefore the religions we ascribe to can be whatever each individual chooses,,The only limiting ability to this is that all religions must be practiced within the laws of the state and Country. AND MARRIAGE was founded BY religion..And is a religious cerimony..Not some legel action imposed by state or country.


Basically if a law stated Gay Marriage is manidatory you would then see an onslaught of Gays heading to church for there wedding,,When they where denied this service the church would be in violation of a law of the government and government would by enacting such a law be imposing it's standards on religion...AINT gonna happen....And if it did , it would be reversed by the united states supream court,,HENCE Civil Union...Allowing 100% of the same rights hetro to gay with out the infringment on religion.

You can scream,yell and hate my facts , BUT any one looking for civil rights and equil protection under the law with a grain of sense can easily see a constitional issue WITH this demand it be called marriage,,,,

I think what a lot of gay's are fighting for is not civil rights...It is there way of life and thinking must be forced on those who disagree with them. And in disguise they are trying to get the word "marriage" because that would put religion in the posistion of having to break the law or conform to your ideas of how life should be...

Stop thinking with emotion and use your brain's..Civil union gurantees ALL the same RIGHTS as a married couple ,,, WTF would any one seeking civil rights have to complain about if that is acheived ? ? ? Peace out

ANd for the record,,Exactly what I am saying is what the N.J courts basically said By ruling the way the did..Gays deserve equil rights,and protections,,But they would NOT call it marriage and sent it to the legislator for them to define what it will be called . .

[meteast chick]

So it's done now! Gay couples in Jersey will have all the rights as Hetero married couples. Will the same terms be used? Frankly, as far as semantics go, who gives a shit? I live in a state whom everyone would assume is progressive, and we have a fabulous senator who, while he has said he supports civil unions, if not marriage, would probably not go near it within an inch of his life now that's he's 'come out' saying he might run for president in 2008. I don't understand why it has to be decided by politicians, why can't we vote on it like any other key thing that effects people? Instead we have to let politicians who are indebted to corporations and expectations and run by fear of losing their jobs to vote for the popular opinion. Who says what the popular opinion is anyway? Is it in one of those many exit polls? Whatever. All I know is that I have a beautiful lady thousands of miles away who couldn't move here for longer than 3 months unless she got a sponsor or won the 'lottery'. If I could, I'd marry her in a heartbeat...of course I have to get divorced first...whoops...

luv and kisses,
xoxoxoxoxoxo
meteast

[Long Duck Dong]

diehrd8

you are incorrect... marriage was not created or founded by religion.... it existed in numerous forms BEFORE religion.....

Pagan and Medieval wedding rituals - a brief outline
Copyright (C) 1990 by Ake Eldberg

There is no such thing as *The* Medieval Roman Catholic wedding ceremony.
Practices varied from country to country and even from see to see. Marriage
is not a Christian invention. When Europe was Christianized, the church had
to deal with a wide variety of local customs formed by other faiths and
traditions Q Celtic, Norse, Latin. The Germanic pagans didn't think of
matrimony as a sacrament. To them, it was a legal contract between two
families. Even a long time after the they had been converted to Chritianity,
it was often difficult to make people understand the need for a Christian
wedding service.

The "pagan" ceremonies were mostly juridical and only peripherally connected
to religion. The church couldn't simply replace the old rituals with one of
its own. So the church absorbed everything that was not directly contrary to
Christian faith, and incorporated these traditions into its ceremonies.


in new zealand, the term * civil union * was used in place of the word * marriage *, cos the religious nuts had a shitfit over the fact that their control over * marriage * may be in trouble because it became the right of any person and not the * hetero * domain
the prime minister of nz stated that the term * civil union * would be the term used to define a union between gay / les couples and people that wanted a union that was not classed as a marriage
the prime minister herself, has stated that if she had a choice, she would have never married, but marriage was classed as a essential part of being a high ranking member of parliament

the civil union in new zealand gives any couple the right to be joined in a union, with all the * trimmings * of a Marriage.... however it doesn't carry the mandatory 2 year seperate period before divorce proceedings can start

[coyotedude]

I think the NJ court decision was good. Not perfect, perhaps, but hell, it's better than what our court did here in supposedly progressive Washington State. At least there was complete consensus that the current situation sucks and something has to be done, even if the majority preferred to punt the issue to the legislature first. (In technical terms, this is called "ducking the issue.") Now, just as long as the conservatives don't have the votes to pass an amendment to the NJ state constitution..... :eek:

I do have to (respectfully) disagree with some of diehrd8's analysis. Freedom of religion in this case means that a religious sect or belief system is not required to recognize the spiritual validity of a marriage, even if the marriage is recognized by the state. The Constitution would NOT force clergy to marry same-gender couples; it doesn't even force clergy to marry het couples now. My mother, for example, is an ordained minister; she has refused to marry het couples on more than one occasion. (Incidentally, she has performed marriage ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples, although these ceremonies are not recognized as legal marriages by the state.) Another example: I believe that many legal het marriages are not recognized by the Catholic Church today, although someone more versed in Catholic doctrine than I would have to explain the whys and wherefores of it all. In my view, freedom of religion is a poor argument for favoring the term "civil union" over "marriage."

Frankly, the reason I believe civil unions will be chosen over marriage (right or wrong) is that "civil union" doesn't quite have the political baggage that "gay marriage" has. Hate to break this to people, but in politics, semantics are everything.

Personally, I prefer the term "civil marriage" for both het and gay couples. First, it sets everyone on an equal footing. Second, it makes clear that we are dealing strictly with the legal aspects and leaving religion completely out of it, even while keeping the term "marriage." But alas, why be reasonable?

Peace

[diehrd8]

Some of what i am reading is good,Some is funny and some is rightly on track and ok with a civil union..

Marriage has been religious for thousands of years,I guess the fact any reconginized clergy from any religion are able to wed people is proof enough of that it is religion based.(Yes a judge can also do it I was married that way and even in that god was mentioned)

The foundation of marriage has been cultivated and sponsered by religions and has certain aspects which have been a standard for as long as it existed,Basically it is done between a man and a woman..First requirement and a universal requirment from the inception of "marriage"

I am for Civil unions that gurantee equil treatment yet leave the term marriage alone..In my way of thinking comprimise is everything and When 100% identicle rights are offered AND PEOPLE still fight for the term "Marriage" claiming that makes it equil I am seeing a vindictive , whinny , trouble maker with isues of resentment being injected into the debate....

If this is about rights why did blacks not insist all people are called caucasion ? ? ? ? ? Or that the government devise a way to make whites brown in color or blacks white in color ? The answer is simple...People can have obvious differences BUT are entitled to equil protection under the law..Which DOES not force anyone to change there differences,, it simply allows for there to be differences with out any consiquences for being different.

That is the goal..equil rights,,,so lay off on the title under which it is labled and enjoy the equil rights being offered under any title....For it is the actions that make a diference NOT the words used ...

[canuckotter]

diehrd, I'm not an American legal expert, but I know a lot of the law down there works the same basic way as it does up here. I suspect that marriage is one of those things. Here in Canada, marriage is a legal thing, government-regulated, typically performed by clergy but not always. There's also a seperate religious ceremony. These are often combined, but the fact that they're done at the same time doesn't mean that the two are connected. So churches are free to practice their religion and refuse to perform weddings for couples they don't approve of, but gay couples can still get legally married. I suspect that the situation in the US is very much the same, and if not, instead of fighting against gay marriage, perhaps you should be fighting for clarifications on the law to protect the constitutional seperation of church and state?

Two further thoughts: If "marriage" is so unimportant a term that gay couples shouldn't fight for it, then shouldn't it also be so unimportant a term that homophobes shouldn't fight against gay marriage if they're OK with civil unions?

And second: Not all religious groups are opposed to queer folk. Shocking, but true. Here in Canada, one of our largest churches (the United Church) is perfectly fine with homosexuality (and bisexuality), going so far as to put small pride stickers on many of its churches' signs, having many gay and lesbian ministers, and having performed gay weddings for years before it was legally allowed. Other churches are slowly moving in that direction, with a few individual congregations having already decided to accept gay weddings.

[diehrd8]

diehrd, I'm not an American legal expert, but I know a lot of the law down there works the same basic way as it does up here. I suspect that marriage is one of those things. Here in Canada, marriage is a legal thing, government-regulated, typically performed by clergy but not always. There's also a seperate religious ceremony. These are often combined, but the fact that they're done at the same time doesn't mean that the two are connected. So churches are free to practice their religion and refuse to perform weddings for couples they don't approve of, but gay couples can still get legally married. I suspect that the situation in the US is very much the same, and if not, instead of fighting against gay marriage, perhaps you should be fighting for clarifications on the law to protect the constitutional seperation of church and state?

Two further thoughts: If "marriage" is so unimportant a term that gay couples shouldn't fight for it, then shouldn't it also be so unimportant a term that homophobes shouldn't fight against gay marriage if they're OK with civil unions?

And second: Not all religious groups are opposed to queer folk. Shocking, but true. Here in Canada, one of our largest churches (the United Church) is perfectly fine with homosexuality (and bisexuality), going so far as to put small pride stickers on many of its churches' signs, having many gay and lesbian ministers, and having performed gay weddings for years before it was legally allowed. Other churches are slowly moving in that direction, with a few individual congregations having already decided to accept gay weddings.

I am Bi..No issue with gay , hetro or bi,,However I also respect institutions set up several thousand years ago and really beleive the term "Marriage" should be left alone when gay people come together.

Why have the word Hetro and gay ? Are not both parties making love ? Or having sex ? Is the difference in this term acceptable ? ? And if so which apparently it is WHY ? ? ? Each word describes the same thing...So tell me if it is the same but different words are used what the point with complaining about a civil union VS marriage ? ?

You see the argument for marriage being used to describe gay couples has a much deeper reason that almost all who argue for it cant eather explain or are willing to explain,,And thats because the drive for the term "Marriage" has another deeper motivation..If you do not nderstand this or see it stand back and ask an easy question.

If gay is 2 men or 2 women and hetro is man and woman and each is refering to sexual preference WHY are the words DIFFERENT ? ? The answer is stupid easy,,because there is a difference and any reasonable person who wants gay rights to be equill to hetro's who are married would be decient enough to let the argument rest so long as the rights are equil..

To deny this logic or worse fight against it clearly shows a deeper reason for the fight and not the honest reason of equil rights . . I want equil rights,,but not at the expense of forcing another group to relinquish something thats been invented by them and practiced by them from as far back as we can look into our existance...... We dont want less rights as has been forced on us,,so why FORCE upon others something they do not want and claim it is in the name of equality ? ? The farse exists,and it is the gay community who is now trying to do to others what they them selves want to be free of...Think about it honestly as i have,,,Civil unions,,gay,,marriage hetro,,Problem solved

[canuckotter]

And you missed my point entirely. I agree, churches that don't want to perform gay weddings shouldn't be required to perform gay weddings. But what about the churches that do want to perform gay weddings? Believe it or not, there are a large number of straight folks who firmly believe that same-sex marriages are marriages in truth as well as name, and a number of clergy who are willing to perform ceremonies solemnising those marriages. So why are you trying to oppress those faiths?