NJ says bring on the gays!

JaJae · 10-25-2006, 06:56 PM

I guess they were disparaged with the number of people running out of our state because of over taxation, fraud, corruption, etc and so they're trying to bring in some new residents.

I'm for this. This is exactly how I think it should be handled.
New Jersey court recognizes right to same-sex unions - CNN.com

TRENTON, New Jersey (CNN) -- The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the state's constitution gives gay and lesbian couples all the rights of married heterosexual couples.

Essentially the courts have said that gay marriage isn't specifically prohibited by our state constitution, therefore if our legislatures want to write a bill in some way to allow equal rights marriage, civil unions, etc for gays it will be legal.

Knowing NJ they'll have this shit out first thing in the morning. It looks like NJ is going to be one of the first states to allow same sex unions. Finally something to be proud of for living in this godawful state.

DosEquis · 10-25-2006, 06:57 PM

Well at least you will be able to get your haircut cheap and your house decorated for a reasonable price

Donkey® · 10-25-2006, 07:01 PM

Ibbushinvadeshackensack

While this is a great thing...and exactly how it should be...the Feds, especially this administration, won't stand for it. Just like with the states deciding their own marijuana laws, the feds will figure out someway to override it with some out of leftfield bullshit. (ibamendmenttoconsitution)

IminWonderland · 10-25-2006, 07:02 PM

Sweet! I wish we had more gays in our community.

WTG New Jersey!

JaJae · 10-25-2006, 07:04 PM

I have a feeling with as crappy as our state is the gays of our nation will be like... "Fuck, why's it gotta be NJ. We can wait..."

ballz2wallz · 10-25-2006, 09:47 PM

They don't call the Garden State for nothing; it's because of all the pansies!

In for moving to Jersey...

RMNIXON · 10-25-2006, 10:27 PM

This will end up in the Supreme Court very soon. When one of these "married" couples moves to another state and is no longer married. It is a matter of time now and who will be the test case?

motivez · 10-25-2006, 10:31 PM

because this decision was rendered based on New Jersey's state constitution and not the U.S. Constitution, there are no grounds for appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court.

RMNIXON · 10-25-2006, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Where did I post this case would go to the supreme court?

IminWonderland · 10-26-2006, 12:28 AM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Where did I post this case would go to the supreme court?

See Post #7

phreak · 10-26-2006, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Well at least you will be able to get your haircut cheap and your house decorated for a reasonable price

WickedLou9 · 10-26-2006, 09:54 AM

I think the judge made the right call. The Judge said that the laws in the state prohibit discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual preference. So she didn't decide what should be done, she just said that according to the laws, they have to do something to grant the same rights to gay couples. She didn't go and say that they had to legalize gay marriage.

Diesel66 · 10-26-2006, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

All it takes is one married couple from Mass to move to New Hampshire and demand the state recognize their marriage like the Constitution requires and the Defense of Marriage Act condemns.

DosEquis · 10-26-2006, 03:34 PM

This whole situation can be solved by the government recognizing marriage as a civil union between two people and then let the church decide or "protect" the sanctity of marriage. The government has no place in this issue really and should leave the descrimination up to the church.

Diesel66 · 10-26-2006, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

This whole situation can be solved by the government recognizing marriage as a civil union between two people and then let the church decide or "protect" the sanctity of marriage. The government has no place in this issue really and should leave the descrimination up to the church.

Do you really think everyone who is against gay marriage is so stupid that changing the name is enough to fool them ?

motivez · 10-26-2006, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Do you really think everyone who is against gay marriage is so stupid that changing the name is enough to fool them ?

If they're stupid enough that in this day and age they're bigoted against equal rights for gay people for being different, then who knows.. that's already pretty stupid.

Phantom · 10-26-2006, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

This whole situation can be solved by the government recognizing marriage as a civil union between two people and then let the church decide or "protect" the sanctity of marriage. The government has no place in this issue really and should leave the descrimination up to the church.

da gays aren't stopping there though. They say a civil union with all the same rights & privileges of marriage is still inferior and they want their unions to be called marriage too.

I could go either way on this one and don't really care and don't really care though.

motivez · 10-26-2006, 03:48 PM

They can call it whatever they want. Just like straight people can. Government has no business telling people otherwise.

Diesel66 · 10-26-2006, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

If they're stupid enough that in this day and age they're bigoted against equal rights for gay people for being different, then who knows.. that's already pretty stupid.

They already have equal rights though. 49 states say 1 man and 1 woman. They dont ask if you are gay straight or nonsexual. One state says either 2 men or 2 women.

How is that not equal rights ? A gay man can marry the exact same woman as a straight man.

Originally Posted by motivez

They can call it whatever they want. Just like straight people can. Government has no business telling people otherwise.

The govt isnt stopping people from joining into religious or secular releationships. They just limit who gets the benefits

motivez · 10-26-2006, 04:14 PM

It's not equal rights for the same reasons that have been explained over and over again throughout the last couple threads on this. I'm not going to spend time going over it again.

That ridiculous talking point being used is nonsensical and doesn't warrant a rehashing of what is a basic fact of the issue which is above contestation.