Battle over same-sex marriage takes shape in Jersey

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

[biblewonk]

If those indicators of social health are valid for homosexuals, part of the reason is the stigma that some members of society attach to the gay lifestyle.

If your sexual preference, or your lifestyle, were described as "abnormal" by a segment of society, and if you suffered discrimination as a result of your lifestyle, you would probably experience a higher incidence of alcoholism, mental illness, etc.

The lifestyle is the illness, the alchoholism, suicide, etc are just side effects.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

They can, but it has to be done piecemeal. Marriage/Civil union is the package deal. Individual items are probably also easier to challenge in court.

[longtermmemmory]

They can and always have been able to arrange their individual lives as they see fit. They can create private cohabitation contracts, powers of attorney and healthcare surrogate declarations. It is only the institutions that affect all of society that there is limitations. Marriage is a social institution not a private institution. Homosexuals will never have the ability to procreat via an institution. (adoption is a legislative creation and use of science is artificial intervention) As a social insititution, it is between a male and a female regardless of sexual behavior of the individuals. We do not allow sex slave contracts regarless of the "consent" of the individual (regadless of orientation).

We do not allow marriages of convenience in order to pass through immigration paperwork regardless of the consent of the parties. Sorry, this society has core rules which must be respected by all. Homosexuals do not respect that their conduct has consequences and limitations. (you can't dress as a punk in an orchestra performance)

There is no legislative or common law right to homosexual sex. Society does not have to suffer the tyrany of the minority sex fetish.

[AAABEST]

RE: your #15

LMFAO!!!

[longtermmemmory]

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.

_ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _


Because the homosexual movement is not interested in providing for each other, the homosexual movement is interested in normalizing same sex sex. They are interested only in normalizing their ability to pursure and recrute new members in their fetish. Its a lifestyle of selfgratification. Enforceable cohabitation contracts would be valid in all states. Vermonts domestic partner "thing" is enforcable in none (recognition was struck down in NJ, CT, and GA)

Homosexuality is not an immutable trait. It can be and has been changed in individuals. While there are arguments, there is no proof in humans. The issue of sexual behavior neutral alternatives to "couples" needs to be adressed and publicised. It exposes the hipocracy and real agenda of the homo-agenda.

[Khepera]

Did I say you were queer? No I said you spoke like one. You mu8st be listening to them because you have their speel down pat.

[eastsider]

Vermonts domestic partner ... recognition was struck down in NJ ...

I hope this means that the "Battle over same-sex marriage [taking] shape in Jersey" is over before it's even been joined!

[shhrubbery!]

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

Well at least they got their infamous Boy Scouts decision thrown back at them by SCOTUS.

Maybe the same will happen with this.

[streamline]

I come from Vermont and I can tell you that the civil union law has had little or no effect on life in our state. To be sure, some gay and lesbian residents have applied for and received licenses for civil unions and out-of-staters have come in for civil union ceremonies (that are not valid in their home states). But strangely, the plague of flies or whatever nonsense we were promised hasn't taken place. The bottom line is that our state has merely decided to recognize the legal rights of our gay and lesbian citizens. It's no big deal.

[Old Professer]

Do you have these outbursts often?

[Old Professer]

Until I can be convinced that homosexuality is anything more than assisted masturbation, I see no reason to codify it.

[Rummyfan]

"Mark Lewis, who along with his partner of 12 years, Dennis Winslow, are two of the plaintiffs in the case. As Episcopal ministers, they perform marriages for other couples but are themselves denied that legal document, he said at the town meeting.

Two other plaintiffs, Karen Nicholson-McFadden, and her partner, Marcye Nicholson-McFadden, tearfully described the thicket of paperwork they must navigate to make sure their young children have medical coverage. Each woman has conceived a child through artificial insemination, but their children do hot have all the same legal rights of a family. For example, the woman who is not biologically related to the child cannot claim the child on health insurance until after going through an adoption.

A nurse and mother of five, Marilyn Maneely, 53, and her partner for the last 12 years, Diane Marini, are also part of the lawsuit.

Marini said her 86-year-old mother has witnessed women get the right to vote in 1920, the desegregation of schools in 1954 and the passage of Title 9, which gave women greater opportunities in sports, in 1972.

"I am hoping during her lifetime, she'll see marriage for gay couples," said Marini. "When New Jersey passes, this we'll all have large weddings," Marini said. "

This whole thing just makes me sick. I think the argument is simply that marriage BY DEFINITION is a union between a mand and a woman. Are we going to throw out 2000 years of morality because we are now so 'enlightened'?

[Alberta's Child]

I'm still waiting for one of these "gay marriage" lawsuits to be filed by co-plaintiffs named Henry Fitzpatrick and Patrick Fitzhenry.

[Alberta's Child]

Bump for an interesting article.

[Victoria Delsoul]

"For one, it is the total legitimization of a lifestyle that is dangerous and inimical to culture at large," Fahling said.

Marriage by definition is a man and woman," said Fahling. "Men and women marry, not men and men or women and women."

Exactly. I was just reading Rick Santorum's comments on homosexuality. It's really good.

"Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality _ LINK

[briant]

Didn't you bring up the idea that blod relatives should not be allowed to marry? You've done a good job making Alberta's Child argue your position. LOL

[Alberta's Child]

That's an excellent quote. One of the most destructive myths in the modern world even aside from homosexuality is that marriage is all about the spouses. It's not -- its primary focus is the creation of an environment conducive to raising children.

[Alberta's Child]

Actually, my arguments in favor of marriage by blood relatives were intended to refute his "libertarian" position -- he clearly was not interested in allowing all consenting adults the freedom to do what they please. He just chose to draw his line at a different place -- but he did draw a line.

[briant]

I know, but he made an argumnet limiting marriage but ended up arguing the opposite position. E.g., the incest genetic thing being overated. Let's not talk about the royals lol.