examiner.com — Marriage in New Jersey remains between one man and one woman. The New Jersey Senate today affirmed this by rejecting a measure that would have permitted same-sex couples to enter into something that would be called "marriage." The same-sex side said they'd go to the NJ Supreme Court. What happens next is anyone's guess.
Jan 7, 2010 View in Crawl 4
porkfriedriceJan 8, 2010
sucks
itzdicemanJan 8, 2010
It's nice to see your movement's arguments reduced to name calling.
Closed AccountJan 8, 2010
It's not my movement. I just think anyone who would restrict the ability of a significant chunk of the population to engage in a practice that does no harm to anyone for the sole reason that they don't approve is an worthless assh**e who needs to go die in a fire.
lydeckerJan 9, 2010
Make progress. This movement is going to continue to make progress as it always has. Attitudes have continually been changing as homosexuality condemners grow old an die off while pro-equality people who don't grow up with any hatred for them ingrained take their places.That's what all statistics have shown historically. The gay rights movement has made much progress recently: civil unions in many states, sexual orientation being protected by hate crimes as race, sex and disability are, employment non-discrimination as well. There's still more to go, and time is all it takes for the tides to turn.
Closed AccountJan 11, 2010
@Allison: You're opinion doesn't count because you're a woman. Now shut up and get your bitch ass back in the kitchen and make me a sammich. </sarcarsm>Obviously I don't think that way. But that's not much different from the discrimination you'd be all too happy to dish out to your fellow Americans for the sole reason that they're not attracted to the opposite sex the way you are. Hypocrite.
lydeckerJan 12, 2010
So, according to your stated logic, even when inter-racial marriage was illegal, all blacks over the respective age as specified by law in that state are allowed to get a marriage license and same as all whites (albeit some other factors, like it being voluntary, not incestuous, no other spouses etc.).According to you, it wasn't discriminatory based on race.But according to Loving V. Virginia, you're wrong and it was. Because the rules of the marriage license gave me different opportunities than it would have if I were a black man. We didn't have the same choice, the same rights. And I don't either now have the same rights as a woman.Now you can defend inter-racial marriage bans if you want, but know you're in the minority. And the exact same logic is being used to defend same-sex marriage bans, and that will too soon be in the minority.
lydeckerJan 12, 2010
So, what are you saying, after gays have equality under marriage laws you will have no problem with that either?And you're also not addressing my claim. If you thing it's equal that men can only marry women and women can only marry men, because it's how the law calls a marriage, then it ALSO would be equal to say that blacks can only marry blacks and whites can only marry whites. There you have it- equality.How about if gay marriage was legal but interracial wasnt? Your logic would say: "All sexes are free to come together in marriage as two people of the same race. (albeit some other factors yada yada). Whether white or black, no one is stopping you from marrying bc of your racial preference, so long as it results in a legal marriage bt people of the same race. There you have it -- equality."I'm not stereotyping you, because I absolutely think you don't believe in the logic you're stating. Since the logic you use against gay marriage is the same as that used against interracial marriage, you either are against inter-racial marriage too because you believe in the logic, or you are simply using the logic because you believe personally gay marriage shouldn't be legal. I'm going with the latter.What I want is to redefine marriage EXACTLY as we did when interracial marriage was illegal. I don't care if you'd come out and say it's legal because everyone could EQUALLY marry someone of their same race, as the law defined it, I and the courts agree that was still discriminatory, as it is to say everyone can EQUALLY marry someone of the opposite gender.Because those aren't equal to choose FOR other people. And that is discrimination.And, yes, I do.
allisonrose870Jan 12, 2010
restricting races to only marrying within their own is discrimination ( and marriage was never redefined to make it legal). it's still one man and one woman. but opening up marriage to include same sex unions is not. is all you/your movement can do is to seek to redefine it to "make a square peg fit into a round hole."
lydeckerJan 12, 2010
"restricting races to only marrying within their own is discrimination"Okay, how? Explain specifically how, in your reasoning, is that discrimination, and what you mean by discrimination. It would be very helpful in the debate.
lydeckerJan 12, 2010
It seems the only way possible that restricting races would be discrimination and restricting genders wouldn't be is that it's the current definition. There's no other way to say what you're saying except for "that's the way it is..." and unfortunately, absolutely no reason why "the way it is" should be. Just apparently that definitions now have more rights than people, and the government should respect a current definition instead of the Constitution's demand for equal rights.Except that goes with the premise that definitions don't change, when they do. Marriage is no longer where a woman was wed to a man, and the man wasn't wed to her. It's not where a woman had to buy her way in with a dowry. That was something that was discriminatory, and it's been changed too.Simply because you don't want gay people to be married, you'll try to argue that the definition has rights. You don't actually believe that all definitions should have rights, or that this defnition, unlike all other definitions that always change with how people use the words, can't change. Anymore, at least. But you'll just try to get behind whatever argument you can that results in gays not being able to get married. It's why plenty of your logic can and also was used to be against interracial marriage.You're arguing that the government's demand for equality is mute in this case just because they chose to use a word that's defined a certain way. In the end, the law is more important than the definition. And it IS discrimination to deny people the right to choose which race, or which gender to enter into a committed government recognized relationship with. You may claim it's not "marriage" discrimination, but it would be civil union or domestic partnership discrimination, of course. And it's still discrimination if the legal term is marriage.That's why I could definitely get behind changing the terms for all marriages to civil unions. It guarantees equality, nobody whines that a definition having rights, and nobody whines that their religion is being stepped on.