Battle over same-sex marriage takes shape in Jersey

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

[leprechaun9]

This issue will be welcomed with open arms by our wrist dangling Governor, Jim McGreedy!

[Celtjew Libertarian]

You forgot one of the other definitions in M-W (or, at least, Merriam-Webster on-line): "an intimate or close union."

[Khepera]

spoken like a true queer.

[Alberta's Child]

But that's the presumption works. For that matter, we are allowed to give gifts to unrelated children, who we are forbidden to have sexual relationships with. Sexual relations are seen, by law, as something different than financial ones.

You are confusing the issue of "minors" in particular with "family members" in general. Minors are not permitted to sign binding contracts regardless of whether they are financial or marital in nature.

One what grounds do you say that blood relatives shouldn't be allowed sexual relations, but should be allowed financial relations?

There is no health-related issue or genetic issue involved when someone signs a financial contract. But you may not want to go there -- all arguments for gay marriages come crashing down once the issue of public health is introduced.

[gulfcoast6]

Not to mention trying to picture two men siting on a couch kissing.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Why drop the term for hetersexual people? Because you agree that homosexuals shouldn't co-op it, so therefore no one should be able to use it "in the legal sense"? In the legal sense, a contract between a man and a woman to live as husband and wife is....A MARRIAGE.

I'm offering it as a midway point. I think heterosexuals and homosexuals should have access to the same legal contracts. The same legal contract should have the same legal terminology. I figure calling it a "civil union" would be an alternative term that everyone could accept.

Call that type of contract a "marriage," call it a "civil union," call it a "marriage/civil union," call it a "pastrami on rye, hold the tomato." Point is, have the legal terminology be the same for heterosexual and homosexual contracts.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

There is no health-related issue or genetic issue involved when someone signs a financial contract. But you may not want to go there --

I'm not sure you want to go there either. The genetic consequences of incest have generally been a myth. It's only when you get generation after generation of inbreeding that you start getting the Haspburg jaw and the like.

And even if you want to rely on the genetic reasons, that would still potentially allow marriages between, say a father and an adult, adopted daughter.

all arguments for gay marriages come crashing down once the issue of public health is introduced.

Unless gay marriage would curb promiscuity.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Little kids should not be sleeping between two men in a bed.

What if the homosexual couple promises to get the child his or her own bed? 8>)

More seriously, I'd take it on a case-by-case basis, just with heterosexual and single parent adoption.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

I doubt that men who get their jollies humping other men in bathhouses are going to be stopped by a little piece of paper. Sorry, I can't call that "sex".

Well if you can't call it sex, then I guess it not promiscuous sex, either. 8>)

In any case, gay men who visit bathhouses are going to be no more stopped by a piece of paper than would a heterosexual man who visits prostitutes. But then, gay marriage generally isn't aimed at the bathhouse crowd.

[Alberta's Child]

. . . that would still potentially allow marriages between, say a father and an adult, adopted daughter.

Which is exactly why such a marriage is permitted by law as far as I know.

Unless gay marriage would curb promiscuity.

Like heterosexual marriage has curbed heterosexual promiscuity? /sarcasm off/

Now that's the kind of argument the gay community really wants to hear -- gay people have so little control over themselves that a legal contract is needed to keep them under control.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Your willingness to destroy society and morality as we know so two guys can fulfill their dream of being "parents" is telling of your LIBERAL mindset.

Please, "libertarian." After all, I also support homeschoolers and private schools, gun ownership, privatizing social "security," and U.S. action in Iraq. And I oppose taxes and the welfare system.

In any case, I don't I don't think gay adoption or marriage would destroy morality. Certainly, it wouldn't do as much as the spate of broken homes that no-fault divorce brings about. And I figure it's no more liberal than consigning a child to be brought up by the state.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Actually, it's irrelevant in my book whether it curbs promiscuity or not. Back to the original point, it's a question of whether consenting adults will be allowed to arrange their lives as they see fit or not.

[biblewonk]

Gay marriage is just like international law. They are both fake. When any party wants to disregard the "law" it is disregarded.

[eastsider]

Perhaps I simply don't understand the purpose, other than mutual self-gratification, served by same-sex "unions," but I don't understand why same-sex "couples" can't simply use existing laws, such as wills, powers of attorney, etc., to provide for each other.

[nickcarraway]

ping