NJ To Make Civil Unions For Gay Couples Official

WFRV.COM ^ | 21 DECEMBER 2006 | AP

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Looks like civil unions, with all the benefits of marriage, still isn't enough for the homosexuals.

It's never been about civil unions, it's always been about destroying traditional marriage and forcing society to accept their disgusting lifestyle.

[knightshadow]

"it's always been about destroying traditional marriage and forcing society to accept their disgusting lifestyle."

Another clear sign of a disintegrating America/society.

[nmh]

You forgot the BARF ALERT!

This sickens me beyond words!

It's so immoral! It's so DISGUSTING. It's sooo unnatural!

I don't want to visualize what they do in THEIR bedroom !

[joylyn]

If the law allows civil unions for gay couples, then surely it must allow them for non-gay couples also.

[randog]

Good point.

[Vaquero]

This bit of incrementalism is a win for now...then they go for marriage next...it is right in the lefts play book.

[ndt]

"If the law allows civil unions for gay couples, then surely it must allow them for non-gay couples also. "

In this case no but I don't believe that is the case for all "civil unions". Below is a snip from the New Jersey bill. link (PDF)

"a. Not be a party to another civil union, domestic partnership or marriage in this State;

b. Be of the same sex and therefore be excluded from the marriage laws of this State or any other state;

c. Be at least 18 years of age, except as provided in section 10 of this act."

[tubasonum]

"'It would not be equal treatment,' Hyland said. 'Mayors have a right to conduct wedding ceremonies or not to conduct them, but I think to say we're only going to conduct certain types of ceremonies opens the door pretty widely. It does raise discrimination questions.'"

What if the mayor is a religious person, and in his religion same sex marriage is considered a mortal sin? Then it raises questions about infringement upon mayor's religious rights.

Damn, I should have been a lawyer. So easy to manipulate the system!

[geege]

Oh great.....now they'll be a "wedding" card passed around in my office.....I work with a woman who is so excited that she can now marry her "partner"......how gross and degrading......

[Rutles4Ever]

Look, I think we're missing the most salient point here. Using the term "civil unions" is a backdoor (pardon the pun) entry to marriage. Essentially, if the liberals are able to reduce this argument to semantics ("union" instead of "marriage"), the government is still facilitating and validating the idea of a homosexual family unit. So, while it seems like a "compromise", it really isn't. The leftist media will just start referring to these people as being "married", and so, whether or not the gov't issues a "marriage" certificate, for all intent and purpose, society will consider these people wedded.

At the end of the day, legislating "civil unions" is an insidious building block to eventual granting of "marriage" certificates to any and all. If society will accept "civil unions", then what's the argument against "marriage"?

[DustyMoment]

Not a big surprise - it's New Jersey!!.

But, here is a bigger question, if New Jersey wants to let gays get married, does another state that does not recognize gay marriage have to honor it?

[antiRepublicrat]

Except for the adoption bit, I'm actually fine with this. There are a bunch of big legal messes that are easily cleaned up with this, generally the situations where a spouse normally gets legal power in case of the death or incapacitation of the other. I'm just thinking in a practical sense, as there's no need to drain the resources of the courts when one half of a gay couple drives into a bridge pylon.

[Wormwood]

It's sooo unnatural! I don't want to visualize what they do in THEIR bedroom !

Then stop.

[FoxInSocks]

But, here is a bigger question, if New Jersey wants to let gays get married, does another state that does not recognize gay marriage have to honor it?

Not in Virginia. The newly-passed constitutional amendment states "That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions." [Emphasis added, of course.]

[Zack Nguyen]

He said his group is looking into what penalties mayors might face if they refuse to perform civil unions.

I hope none, although legally they may be required to.

[mrsmith]

These are required by the NJ Supreme Court to be exactly equal to marriage, and they are.

All states in the union will be required to enforce these.

[mrsmith]

The Virginia Constitution will not be recognized.

The Virginia Court of Appeals just ruled that a custody agreement between two Vermont sodomites must be recognized because of federal law.

All aspects of these "unions" will have to be recognized and enforced by other states- whatever their constitution says. Federal law will require it in the few instances- if any- it doesn't already.
And, I repeat from above, the NJ Supreme Court required these unions be exactly equal to marriages.

It's over, publicly officialized sodomy is an endorsed state of marriage throughout the US.

[pollywog]

Oh great.....now they'll be a "wedding" card passed around in my office.....I work with a woman who is so excited that she can now marry her "partner"......how gross and degrading......

I wouldn't sign it!!!

[Rome2000]

is one that is typically achieved in incremental steps,

I like the incremental steps used by Castro and his fellow communists, line your enemies up against a wall and shoot them.

Corzine and his wretched kronies are more dangerous than the ragheads.

[DustyMoment]

Interesting. Thanks, Fox.