The New Jersey Supreme Court:
Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed samesex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to samesex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.
its a real " statutory scheme " alright
All we need now is Rita Cosby to translate the opinion - any number of ways. ;-)
How generous of them to allow the legislature to call it what they want. I'm sick of living under a judicial oligarchy. And last I checked, I didn't get to vote for any of these bozos in black!
I love that final line where the Court says the name given to gay marriage is up to the democratic process. How generous of them. I guess that counts for judicial restrain the eyes of the Left.
Is there a requirement in law that requires opposite-sex couples to be heterosexual? I was certainly not aware of this. If so, there are a lot of closeted gay or bisexual people out there who aren't as married as they think they are!
Similarly, are same-sex couples (who must be committed, apprently), also required to be homosexual? Can bisexual people or heterosexual people (who are committed) marry people of their own sex under this ruling? If not, why not?
Goodness gracious. These judges really are as stupid as we all think they are!
I know, the ruling ignores the purpose of the financial and social props that are afforded to married couples, that is that marriage is supported as the basis of the family unit for the purpose of raising children. The gay community tacitly admits this by referring to heterosexuals as "breeders".
Denying ANYONE the financial and social benefits and privileges given to couples of any sort bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. Government has no business recognizing any sort of couple-hood, much less any business meting out different privileges and burdens based on couple-hood status or lack thereof.
The problem is the state forcing you to get a marriage license. A license is defined in Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the American Language as: Leave; permission; authority or liberty given to do or forbear any act. A license may be verbal or written; when written, the paper containing the authority is called a license. To permit by grant of authority; to remove legal restraint by a grant of permission. Why do you need a license to do what is already allowed and has been done for centuries by the church? The answer is government control. Marriage is a religious institution ordained by God for a purpose, and is found in the Bible. Last time I checked the Bill of Rights as part of theConstitution for the United States Article 1 states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
Noah Webster, defined marriage in his 1828 American Dictionary of the American Language as: The act of uniting a man and a woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
Marriage, God given right and Religious Institution or,
Privilege given to us from government, and run by government?
If we truly want to protect marriage and the family in Pennsylvania today, we must not look to government, but to God and Natures Law. We must take activist Judges who disobey the Constitution for the United States of America and the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and remove them from the bench. If our lawmakers really want to protect marriage and the family they would do their jobs and hold these judges accountable for their violations of these two documents.
We can not allow our lawmakers to amend the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to define marriage. Marriage will no longer be a God given right but a Privilege given by and controlled by government. If this marriage amendment becomes a part of the Constitution and or Law in Pennsylvania it absolutely will open up the flood gates and allow homosexual marriages because in the Constitution for Pennsylvania, Article 1 Section 28 states: Prohibition Against Denial or Abridgment of Equality of Rights Because of Sex: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania because of the sex of the individual.
TO PROTECT MARRIAGE WE HAVE TO STOP DIVORCE!
GOD’S PLAN FOR MARRIAGE
The Plan of God for Marriage, since the first book of the Bible, Genesis 2:24, after creating Eve, says "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Marriage is to be "two persons in one flesh", and the two persons in marriage should be, the husband and the wife, with Jesus Christ, the Lord and savior in the heart of both of them.
The big problem is that many marriages in today’s environment derive from fleshly desires, feelings of obligation, government benefits and just out of irresponsibility. By entertaining the idea of making a law or changing the constitution only gives credence to same sex marriages and marriages of convenience. Marriage is a religious institution between a man and a woman preformed by the Church, not by government. You make a vow before God and it shall not be entered into lightly. The vow usually goes something like this: Dearly beloved: We are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this company, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy matrimony; which is commended of St. Paul to be honorable among all men; and therefore is not by any to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, and in the fear of God. Into this holy estate, these two persons present come now to be joined. If any man can show just cause why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter forever hold his peace. In many marriages of convenience the husband and the wife, are open to Satan… and where Satan is, there is misunderstanding, separation, adultery, and divorce. The greatest plague today is not AIDS, not drugs, and not alcohol, the greatest plague today is legal marriage separations and divorces.
Marriage is a "Sacrament", a sacred and holy thing, perceptible to the senses, which on the grounds of Divine institution possesses the power both of effecting and signifying sanctity and righteousness. It is not for getting benefits through government programs or benefits from your job or convenience.
It is one of the seven Sacraments instituted directly by Jesus, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Mark 10:6-9
It is for Life:
Marriage is indissoluble in the teachings of the Bible, for Life, because "the two of them become one body", inseparable! "I say onto you, everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of fornication, makes her an adulteress, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery" Matthew 19:9 So, the biblical standard for Marriage is a monogamous relationship in which a man and a woman share a lifetime commitment to each other, second only to their commitment to God.
However, that exception, "illicit marriage" or "fornication", is the basis today for many legal Christian divorces and annulments blessed by the Church. Yes that is right; I said by the Church not the government. The Bible sets the standard for marriage not our Lawmakers.
There is a triple purpose of Marriage in the Bible: Generation and bringing-up children, mutual help, and the morally regulated satisfaction of the sex urge.
The first purpose, was established in the first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve just after their creation, "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Genesis 1:28.
The second, in Genesis 2:18, "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.": So the purpose of marriage is the mutual completion and personal perfection of the marriage partners, man and woman, or their mutual love and unity.
The third is taught by Paul in 1Corinthians 7:2, "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.".
We do not need nor should we want an Amendment to the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for the Constitution was established for the government, to tell it what it can and cannot do, and operate with limited power, not to tell “WE THE PEOPLE” what we can and cannot do. For if we open up the Constitution to dictate to the people instead of the government we will no longer have God-given rights through Gods Law or Natural law but civil liberties or civil rights meaning from government.
Let us get back to God and Natures Law that our Founding Fathers used to form our Declaration of Independence, the Constitution for the United States of America and the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Commonsense must once again prevail in our governing body and society.
God Bless,
Ronald E. Smith
www.cpbutler.com
Technically, the State of New Jersey violated the Equal Protection Clause when they created financial and social benefits and privileges for heterosexual married couples. But, since the state had an obvious compelling interest in doing so, the Equal Protection Clause gives way.
There is no compelling state interest in extending financial and social benefits and privileges to married homosexual couples. The court is wrong.
They have the same rights. They have the right to enter into man/woman marriage.