October 26, 2006
Implications from NJ's Gay Rights Ruling
With the NJ Supreme Court decision that gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples just one day old, it's still unclear whether or not New York will accept a NJ same-sex civil union or marriage, though it has with other states. Mayor Bloomberg said, "New York City has a policy of accepting bona-fide marriages from other jurisdictions. I've always believed it's not the government's business whom you marry." And City Council Speaker Quinn who is openly gay said, "New York State's Legislature must also act to address this injustice in New York so that all citizens are treated equally on both sides of the Hudson River."
Now the next phase is whether or not the Legislature will call same-sex partnerships "marriage." Gay rights advocates are working on their lobbying tactics. The Star-Ledger had a good explanation of what the court ruling means and what the next steps are.
We were very struck by the NY Times article about the justices of the NJ Supreme Court. The three dissenting voices that wanted to push for gay marriage were all appointed by Republicans, while three of the four justices on the majority were appointed by Democrats. Chief Justice Deborah T. Poritz (pictured), who was Christine Todd Whitman's Attorney General, emphasized in the dissenting opinion that it was important for gays to to have the word marriage in their vernacular as well: “We must not underestimate the power of language...Labels set people apart as surely as physical separation on a bus or in school facilities." She also wrote a "1999 decision, later reversed by the United States Supreme Court, requiring the Boy Scouts of America to retain a gay assistant scoutmaster. And she wrote for the majority in a 2000 opinion striking down a parental notice requirement for minors seeking abortions."
Photograph of Chief Justice Poritz on Monday by Mel Evans/AP
|
"Marriage" is a term that traditionally refers to the union between a man and a woman.
That's the way I Created it.
Now homosexuals (ohhh, He used the H-word!) want to expand that interpretation to include same-sex unions.
Well, excuse you Me.
Sorry, but what then will stop the bestiality lovers from marrying their horses and ponies and sheep eventually?. Because THEY have their rights too, correcto?. No sillies; I don't mean the Rights I gave you guys. I mean the funny little rights you people made-up when you couldn't deal with my basic Top Ten List.
You guys get your crap together now 'cause I'm starting to think "locusts" and "pestilence" here.
Why do you think I wiped-out the Greeks?.
conservatives must be frothing at the mouth because the law was actually followed!!
Ooo, Almighty..please spare us, your ignorant subjects, from your wrath! I will sacrifice my goat to you instead of marrying it..
The right-wing of the Republican party in other states and nationally must be loving this -- just in time to rouse the base for the midterm elections and distract attention from major polical crises!
This idea of "loosening" the definition of marriage leading to beastiality is the most ridiculous and offensive thing I've ever heard.
People who hold this belief are essentially calling gay men and women less than human. This is an issue that has no real impact on straight men and women whatsoever. It's about denying a subset of Americans their rights. If you support denying them these rights you are a bigot, regardless of your reasoning.
Um - your reasoning is fallacious, AC. Denying rights to a group that falls outside of the union referred to in the traditional definition of the word isn't bigotry necessarily.
To qualify that statement, I don't have a horse in this race and don't really care what the outcome is.
Though, here's an interesting quandary: what say you on a man who wishes to marry multiple wives? Or vice versa? Isn't that any American's right by your logic - the right to marry whomever you want? I mean, if you're going to bend the basic definition of marriage to include same-sex, it doesn't seem much more heinous to include bigamy.
Note that I'm not equating the two, just using the same reasoning.
I would much rather if the questions raised in this argument were about bigamy than about bestiality.
The rights I was intending to talk about were the rights given to married couples: visiting privelages in ambulances and hospitals, property rights after death, rights to jointly own property, and (less positively) the right not to be forced to testify against one another in court.
Although I don't consider polygamy a right, this is a much more reasonable (and much less offensive) issue for debate than the idea that there will suddenly be a flood of people wanting to marry their livestock.
The issue I take is that people seem to think that their union is better than someone else's based solely on their choice of partner.