Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MikeA

It was a 4-3 decision. 4 judges ruled something not called marriage would be okay, as long as gays get the same benefits as heterosexuals. 3 judges thought it must be called marriage.


18 posted on 10/25/2006 12:19:06 PM PDT by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: conservative in nyc

I'm glad the Justices were operating their own legislature and debating whichj gay marriage bill to pass. sarcasm off.


22 posted on 10/25/2006 12:20:54 PM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: conservative in nyc
It was a 4-3 decision. 4 judges ruled something not called marriage would be okay, as long as gays get the same benefits as heterosexuals. 3 judges thought it must be called marriage.

So it was unanimous on the issue of unions, just not on the issue of what to call it?

43 posted on 10/25/2006 12:27:37 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: conservative in nyc
It was a 4-3 decision. 4 judges ruled something not called marriage would be okay, as long as gays get the same benefits as heterosexuals. 3 judges thought it must be called marriage.

You're kidding! Even in MA, I believe the three dissenting judges said it should be a legislative matter.

83 posted on 10/25/2006 12:41:24 PM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: conservative in nyc

it sounds like NJ will just pass civil unions then.


109 posted on 10/25/2006 12:52:41 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: conservative in nyc
It was a 4-3 decision. 4 judges ruled something not called marriage would be okay, as long as gays get the same benefits as heterosexuals. 3 judges thought it must be called marriage.

Gay marriage activists use equal rights protection disingenuously. Gay marriage has nothing to do with equal rights. It has everything to do with forced social acceptance and legitimacy of an unnatural, anomolous, self-chosen lifestyle. Period.

There is nothing "progressive" or "enlightened" about a socity that accepts such behavior. The "enlightened" citizens are the ones that understand this is just one more step toward the downfall of our society.

Gays insist their sexual orientation is not a choice yet they believe they are capable of making all other choices in life. In essense they are insisting on having it both ways. If this in not a choice then what other behavior are gays capable of without their consent or decision? They would be the first to insist they make all choices in their lives yet just this one choice is forced on them.

That's pure nonsense. They either choose their lifestyle or they are freaks of nature. One or the other. It's that simple.

181 posted on 10/25/2006 1:47:22 PM PDT by blake6900 (THIS SPACE FOR RENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: conservative in nyc

Well and good for state benefits, but the DOMA controls, for now, federal benefits, which uses the definition of marriage as between a man and woman. Eventually, I see the need for a constitutional amendment either in NJ and every other state and/or federally.


198 posted on 10/25/2006 2:16:25 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: conservative in nyc
It was a 4-3 decision. 4 judges ruled something not called marriage would be okay, as long as gays get the same benefits as heterosexuals. 3 judges thought it must be called marriage.

Sheesh, a court that splits between liberal and wacko!

255 posted on 10/25/2006 3:24:31 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Payback: this time it's for real!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson