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

To: jasoncann
IWas anything less really expected.

It's not as bas as could be expected - civil unions or some other type of legal relationship that's required. It need not be called marriage. So yes, less was expected - that the New Jersey Supreme Court would create a right to gay marriage, instead of civil unions. Call it a partial victory.
41 posted on 10/25/2006 12:27:04 PM PDT by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: conservative in nyc

Semantics. True, words mean things, but it's virtually inconsequential, here.


47 posted on 10/25/2006 12:29:48 PM PDT by Tree of Liberty (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: conservative in nyc
When is reality going to sink in and everyone going to see that what you call it is irrelevant. A word is just a title to the substance of something. If you change your name from Bob to Dan you haven't changed yourself. It's just a title.

Why are people so dumb?

55 posted on 10/25/2006 12:31:57 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 41 | View Replies ]

To: conservative in nyc

Check articles from Stanley Kurtz early last year on NRO. The fact is that "civil unions" have the overwhelming effect of homosexual marriage.


262 posted on 10/25/2006 3:55:59 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: conservative in nyc

That's a meaningless distinction. Whatever it is called (call it a Mirage if you want), they require that it be exactly the SAME as marriage.

I'll say the decision is illogical. They used an "equal protection" clause to say that a "pairing" of people have rights, rather than individuals. Thus, they said that a pair of males have their rights violated because a male-female pair can marry and the same-sex pair cannot. No "individual" has their rights violated, every male no matter what their preference have a right now to marry a female.

However, having decided that a male-male couple needs "equal protection", they then said that other types of couplings could still be discriminated against, most notably "polygamy".

However, to do so they must have decided that a government has NO COMPELLING REASON to prevent two men from being married, but the same government HAS a compelling reason to keep a man from marrying two women, or a woman from marrying two men, or a bisexual marrying both a man and a woman.

But while I can come up with a compelling reason to deny same-sex marriage (one being they can't have children, and therefore can't contribute to society what society needs, a coherent biological family unit), I can't think of a compelling reason why we wouldn't let 3 people get married.

I hope this pushes the Virginia amendment over the top. We were getting worried here about it, but this should show every virginian that the threat is real -- after all, we have an equal protection clause in OUR constitution as well.


316 posted on 10/25/2006 7:03:20 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | 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