Battle over same-sex marriage takes shape in Jersey

Newark Star Ledger ^ | 4/22/03 | Kathy Barrett Carter

[Incorrigible]

"You have to come to Trenton. You have to reward your friends and punish your enemies. You have to tell us why this is right. You have to agitate and aggravate and spend money to be a force."

Sounds like a call to arms to me.  However, as much bravado as State Senator Adler wants to invoke, it wont pass the legislature since they wont want to really deal with it.  Where it will pass is with the same Christie Whitman (R) appointed Supreme Court that enabled Lautenberg to get on the Democratic ticket for Senator after the date had passed.

"The Supremos" will force yet another decision upon the people of New Jersey and the politicians will do nothing to stop them.

[goldstategop]

I would hazard a guess the corrupt Sopranos will force gay marriage upon New Jerseyans. The law means nothing to the Trenton Seven.

[Alberta's Child]

He puts New Jersey at or near the top of the list of states where the courts are likely to recognize gay marriage.

Correction -- New Jersey is at or near the top of the list of states where the courts are likely to recognize anything that even the most irrational, fouled-up person could possibly come up with, regardless of whether it has any basis in law.

[Mears]

The whole topic of gay marriage gives me a big,fat headache.

[Kuksool]

The MA Supreme Court is hearing a similiar case as the one in NJ. First VT and now MA and NJ. What is it with the Northeast?

[Incorrigible]

Puleeeaasse...

Even the Boston Globe doesn't try to sell that tripe.

"Breaking with public opinion nationally, Massachusetts residents, by a slim majority, say they favor allowing gays to marry, a new Boston Globe/WBZ-TV poll shows.

In the survey, 50 percent supported legalizing gay and lesbian marriages, while 44 percent said they oppose it. Those figures are in sharp contrast to national polls in recent years. A Kaiser Family Foundation survey in 2000 found that 55 percent of Americans questioned opposed gay marriage, while 39 percent supported it. A Pew Center poll in 2001 showed only 35 percent of people favor same-sex marriage."

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/098/metro/Support_for_gay_marriage-.shtml

 

[Alberta's Child]

Just look at the 2000 electoral map and the pedophile priest scandals of the last couple of years. The states that are dominated by Catholic voters are the most fouled-up states in the nation.

[Alberta's Child]

I know a few gay people, but I don't know any happy ones. Are they telling me something?

[CatoRenasci]

Maybe the way to deal with the fudge packers is to legalize gay marriage, and then start enforcing the laws against fornication, adultery, bigamy, polygamy, etc. Most of what's dangerous about gays is their lifestyle: the promiscous sex, the recruiting by chickenhawks, etc. Even if you made queer marriage legal, most of those behaviors might still be prohibited under current law in many jurisdictions.

I have known a lot of gays over the past 40 years, coming from San Francisco, and have seen both the ruinous effects of the lifestyle and a few committed homosexual couples who minded their own business and went about normal lives, save for what they did in private.

I am a lot less troubled by the latter than the former. Of course, this would never work, but it's an intriguing thought to cut into their set of arguments and focus on behavior.

[Alberta's Child]

Oh, and watch how quickly the whole concept of "gay marriage" loses its appeal once gay couples have to start dealing with issues like alimony, child support, custody battles, etc. The problem with personality disorders is that nothing can ever be done to make them "normal" in any sense of the word despite any attempt to use the legal process to pretend otherwise.

[eastsider]

Lawyers for the couples are arguing that barring same-sex couples from marrying violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution.

If the law says that each citizen has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex -- or conversely, that no citzen has the right to marry a person of the same sex -- then I don't see where there's an equal protection violation.

I'm encouraged by the increasing desperation of the arguments.

[AAABEST]

You folks can either become enlightened on this issue or you can become further marginalized and be relegated to the trash heap of history.

Your brain is in a liberal "trash heap" as is your moral compass. You're not "enlightened", you live in darkness like a worm.

Not only that, your contention is bogus. The majority of Americans are repulsed by the idea of gay marraige. Many polls have shown this, no polls support the idiocy you espouse.

[goldstategop]

Yup. Not all marriages are created equal. And gay marriage is upheld, why not do the same for polygamists - or male pedophiles who want to marry a 10 year old little girl. I mean where do you draw the line? The advocates for gay marriage think they're being clever. A civil rights proposition it ain't. Anyways no every one is suited for marriage and many heterosexuals are perfectly happy being single. There's no "right to marry."

[eastsider]

"Here is a news flash for those of you who think your opposition to gay marriage is a majority view in America:

"It's only a majority view among right-wing, intolerant Christian conservatives.

"Your view that homosexuality is a "sin" or "unnatural" is a minority view in this country today, and it's becoming more marginalized every day.

"At some point in the not-too-distant future, gay Americans will be fully integrated into the mainstream of society (they're just about there now) and sexual preference will be seen as a non-issue.

"You folks can either become enlightened on this issue or you can become further marginalized and be relegated to the trash heap of history."

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Here is a news flash for those of you who think your opposition to gay marriage is a majority view in America:

You're wrong. The majority oppose gay marriage. And I'm one of the few Freepers who think that gay marriage or something equivalent in everything but name should have legal recognition.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Yup. Not all marriages are created equal. And gay marriage is upheld, why not do the same for polygamists - or male pedophiles who want to marry a 10 year old little girl. I mean where do you draw the line?

I draw the line at consenting adults, not related by blood. In other words, gay marriage and polyamorous marriages are fine with me. Marriages involving children, animals or blood relations are not.

[Alberta's Child]

You can look at almost any statistical indicator of "social health" (alcoholism, drug abuse, exposure to violent crimes committed by friends or family members, mental illness, exposure to preventable diseases, etc.) and you'll find that homosexuals have a substantially higher incidence of these pathologies than heterosexuals. This isn't just an issue of who you know and who I know.

[Alberta's Child]

Why are the lines that you draw any more legitimate than the ones that I draw?