Support NeoGAF

[vitaflo]

Honestly, the goverment just shouldn't have any dealings with marriage. In our culture, it is historically tied to religion, and it will take too much to seperate it from that, and far too long. The government should issue some sort of civili union recognition to everyone (gays, straight, whatever) and leave "marriage" to religion, allowing each one to decide what they do or do not accept within their own practices.

But marriage is not tied to religion, not anymore. If it was I wouldn't have been able to get married, because my wife and I are athiests.

 

[Dan]

But for the sake of everyone, let's just eliminate the damn word marriage from all of government, replace it with civil unions and let everyone get the benefits they deserve. If churches don't want to allow gays to marry, who cares, but the change in diction would at least help people grasp the idea that there's a difference between government unions and religious unions.

So when today is this ruling coming down? I don't see any updates on it.

 

[ferrarimanf355]

Those deceptively-named organizations (you know who they are) are probably going to have a field day with this one...

 

[Piper Az]

Marriage recognition by the government is a privilege or a service; it is not a right of a citizen to be recognized under it. Government has been gone by the traditional definition of marriage and offered benefits under that definition. I think the issue arises from the fact that a new type of couples (gays), who do not fit the traditional definition, are calling to be included in the service. Since the definition of marriage cannot applied to them, why not come up with another term for gay couples? How far could the defintion of marriage be extended to include all? Does it just take two (or more?) people who love each other and live together to be accepted "married"?

 

[White Man]

Does it just take two (or more?) people who love each other and live together to be accepted "married"?

And he's introduced the slippery slope argument!

 

[Ford Prefect]

And he's introduced the slippery slope argument!

Speaking of slippery slope, tell me when Western morals have deteriorated to the point where I can legally marry a snake, because I am really aroused by snakes right now.

 

[White Man]

Speaking of slippery slope, tell me when Western morals have deteriorated to the point where I can legally marry a snake, because I am really aroused by snakes right now.

Once gay marriage is allowed, it's only a matter of time before I can have a 3 way marriage between myself, my cat, and a rudely-shaped vegetable!

 

[Christopher]

Once gay marriage is allowed, it's only a matter of time before I can have a 3 way marriage between myself, my cat, and a rudely-shaped vegetable!

your cat will probably leave you...

 

[Ford Prefect]

Once gay marriage is allowed, it's only a matter of time before I can have a 3 way marriage between myself, my cat, and a rudely-shaped vegetable!

 

[SecretDestroyer]

CNN: Gay couples have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples under the New Jersey state constitution, the state Supreme Court rules.

 

[levious]

I think the issue arises from the fact that a new type of couples (gays), who do not fit the traditional definition, are calling to be included in the service. Since the definition of marriage cannot applied to them, why not come up with another term for gay couples?

ignoring the comment on interracial marriage from earlier? They were also a new type of couple that did not fit the traditional definition... if you're only argument is that it doesn't fit then it's not a very compelling argument.

 

[Piper Az]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/n...&en=51e657f351dfce95&ei=5094&partner=homepage

October 25, 2006
N.J. Court Backs Rights for Gay Unions
By LAURA MANSNERUS
The State Supreme Court in New Jersey said today that under equal protection guarantees of the state constitution, same-sex couples “must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes.”

But it said that whether that status is called marriage or something else “is a matter left to the democratic process.”

In a 4-3 vote, the court found that an arrangement similar to that of Vermont, which authorizes civil unions between same-sex couples but does not call them marriages, would be consitutional in New Jersey.

The court gave the legislature a six-month deadline to enact the necessary legislation to provide for same-sex unions.

Overall, this, I would say, is a good verdict (esp. the bolded part since I don't believe that the Judicial branch has the right to define what marriage is. The people should decide it, if it needs to be.)

 

[Father_Brain]

CNN: Gay couples have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples under the New Jersey state constitution, the state Supreme Court rules.

Misleading wording. It actually leaves the door open for civil unions instead, so it's more like the 1999 Vermont ruling than the 2003 Mass. one. Not the decision the fundies were expecting or hoping for to get the base riled up.

Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this State, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our State Constitution....

To bring the State into compliance with Article I, Paragraph 1 so that plaintiffs can exercise their full constitutional rights, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes or enact an appropriate statutory structure within 180 days of the date of this decision....

We will not presume that a separate statutory scheme, which uses a title other than marriage, contravenes equal protection principles, so long as the rights and benefits of civil marriage are made equally available to same-sex couples. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.

 

[ronito]

oh man. All the man/animal/rudely shaped vegetable marriages are going to start.

Oh and I guess my wife and I will have to get divorced now that our marriage is worth nothing. But that wont matter, because God will smite us all for being so evil. Nice knowing you guys. I love you.

 

[DarienA]

Good job New Jersey!

It's not over yet though:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/25/jersey.samesex.ap/index.html

Instead, the high court stopped short of fully approving gay marriage and gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include gay couples or create new civil unions.

 

[Father_Brain]

As for Arde0: again, there's no evidence for what you're implying, if the best you can cite is an article from the day after the election (at the height of the false "moral values" CW). Links:

http://www.slate.com/id/2109275/
http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/041112myths.html
http://www.newyorkblade.com/2006/6-26/news/national/myth.cfm

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

well, that's nice i guess.

 

[ronito]

Also: October SURPRISE!!!

Vote in them Republicans. They'll save ya from teh gay marriage!!

 

[Bezz]

Thats good news for gay people.

And for the opposing ones, grow up, religion dont rule anything anymore on the West. WE ARE FREE! (we as in everybody on the west)

 

[Nick]

I really don't care about gay marriage. I don't care if it becomes legal and I don't care if it doesn't. A marriage has nothing to do with a ring or a piece of paper.

 

[krypt0nian]

Call it "buttbanging" for all I care. Just give me the bundle of rights and protections that the straight folks have enjoyed.

Marriage should be the jurisdiction of the churches anyway and the government should have no say in it. They should feel free to determine civil union benefits and restrictions.