Same Sex Marriages In New Jersey

website of KYW radio, Philadelphia ^ | 3/14/2004 | Ed Kasuba

[foreverfree]

Sunday, March 14, 2004

Same Sex Marriages In New Jersey

By KYW's Ed Kasuba

With same-sex marriages back in the news in New Jersey, a law professor at Rutgers-Camden says it will be interesting to see how the courts rule on the issues raised by Asbury Park.

Asbury Park performed one same-sex marriage, then stopped when the state attorney general said the ceremony was illegal. Law professor Sally Goldfarb says even though a judge in Mercer County has ruled same sex marriages are not legal, another judge could rule differently:

"New Jersey laws, unlike that of many other states, does not prohibit same sex marriage. In fact, they are silent on the topic. So the marriage laws seem to, in a sense, be aimed at man-woman couples. That's probably the only thing the legislature was thinking about when the statutes were written."

Most believe the issue will eventually be decided by the State Supreme Court.

[foreverfree]

I recall seeing some weeks ago an NYT article proclaiming Asbury Park the east coast's newest homo resort. Wonder what The Boss thinks?

foreverfree

[Wally_Kalbacken]

Lemme see if I understand the approach being used by Lambda, et. al., to institute same sex marriage.

They attack any prohibition in state statutes as being arbitrariness which is in contravention of the equal protection provisions of federal constitutional law.

Once you see the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman as an example of arbitrariness which is prohibited by the Federal constitution, you have two choices:

1. Amend the Federal Constitution to explicitly prohibit same sex marriage.
2. Sit back and enjoy the ride as things like statutory rape, bestiality prohibitions, incest statutes and the like all fall to challenges based on arbitrariness.

People need to get serious and back a Federal Constitutional Amendment and quit wasting energy at the state level.

[Coleus]

Gay couple married in Asbury Park, a NJ first

[BenLurkin]

[EdReform]

Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

The Stamp of Normality

[ThJ1800]

I am no legal scholar, so perhaps someone here can confirm, or deny, this. Marriages are contracts, and state governments define who is party to these contracts. If this is the case and only men and women are recognized as legal parties to the marriage contract, would it not be illegal for any other persons, such as a homosexual couple, to be in such a contract?

[GeronL]

arbitrary?? Hasn't the man-woman marriage thing been pretty much the norm in civilization since... oh 2,500BC??

[pikachu]

I always thought the way to get this through a court was to decalre ALL mariages illegal. The liberal courts want everyone equal at the lowest common demoninator. Rather than push for the rather small gay marriage, why not get rid of all mariages. It would be sure to keep the lawyers busy for decades.

[BenLurkin]

This may sound odd - but I fully expect that someday a leftist court (possibly even a left dominated SCOTUS) will declare that the Constitution is "unconstitutional"!

[GeronL]

LOL

[madprof98]

"New Jersey laws, unlike that of many other states, does not prohibit same sex marriage. In fact, they are silent on the topic. So the marriage laws seem to, in a sense, be aimed at man-woman couples. That's probably the only thing the legislature was thinking about when the statutes were written."

Because it isn't explicitly forbidden, it's acceptable? In other words, if our ancestors weren't sufficiently depraved of mind to have envisioned this possibility, we have to live with it? (Sounds like the people who say Jesus must have been OK with abortion and homosexuality since he didn't speak directly against them.)

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

So someone thinks that when the legislature wrote statutes about marriage, even thought they didn't specifically mention "one man and one woman" that's what they meant.

We're talking genius IQ here no doubt. Cutting edge and all that.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this busy pinglist.

[little jeremiah]

I was thinking of that stupid argument exactly.

"Well, Jesus never mentioned necrophilia, so it must be okay, right?"

Like a small kid who smears jam all over the walls, with the excuse "You said not to smear peanut butter all over the walls so I thought jam was okay!"

[JesseHousman]

The homosexual movement's rationalization is far more widely advanced in its claims as homosexuals no longer seek just a right to privacy and a right to protection from wrong.

Homosexuals want “government and society” to affirm that sodomy is morally equivalent to the marital act. “Coming out of the closet” can only mean an assent on the level of moral principle to what would otherwise be considered morally disordered