Speculation is rampant that retiring NJ Supreme Court Chief Justice Deborah Poritz will deliver a pre-Election day present to the GOP New Jersey’s gays and lesbians by issuing an order instituting court-mandated gay marriage to the Garden State.
Keep your eye on this website at 3pm today.
But “The Pot” (at The Pot and The Kettle) says not so fast! Rumors around Trenton say Poritz ain’t got the votes.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Is there no end to Rove’s genius? Only he could manipulate the NJ Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage two weeks before an election!
“…instituting court-mandated gay marriage to the Garden State.”
You forgot to mention that thing called a Constitution.
And you seem to be very happy that the GOP might get “a pre-Election day present” if New Jersey’s gays and lesbians should be recognized as equal in and by the state. Don’t your references to the GOP and a gift make evident that the GOP is anti-gay, since the GOP will most likely use a NJ ruling for gays and lesbians against gays and lesbians elsewhere? I guess as long as the GOP gets what it wants, you’ll be happy. The hell with gays and lesbians, despite the hilarious “GayPatriot” moniker.
If New Jersey’s gays and lesbians should be recognized as equal in and by the state…
How pathetically insecure do you have to be to think your life and love doesn’t matter unless it’s validated by a state bureaucracy.
Now let me do the response myself, since it is so entirely predictable.
“No, I’m for gays and lesbians. But I am against ‘activist judges’. We should be changing the hearts and minds of the American people and using the legislatures to pass laws for equality. [Nevermind that the Constitutions might already include those stipulations.] When the LeftGayBorgSpaceshipLibBabyKillingChristHating groups stop trying to force things down the American people’s throats, we might be able to change hearts and minds through [some idealistic program of] education. And when we start showing straight Americans that we are just like them, and when we live up to the standards of monogamy and responsibility [which is what is being demanded in the marriage debate], and when we stop hanging out with LeftLib groups out of the mainstream [yeah, those organizations that lend the most support to the gay and lesbian movement], then The Heartland [genuflect now] will come to love us and allow us equal citizenship.”
Right.
Also – most NJ-ians want gay marriage. Seriously. check the polls.
#3. Have a kid and then talk to me about insecurity. This isn’t about feelings, as you try to introject and ascribe motivations which are not at all related to the argument. But, if we go by your argument, “ow pathetically insecure do [straight people] have to be to think [thieir] life and love doesn’t matter unless it’s validated by a state bureaucracy[?]” And more than that, that their life and love doesn’t matter if the state recognizes it and validates it ONLY in a way that excludes gays and lesbians???
#6. I’ve got two kids and I’m fixin’ to adopt a third. My life is valid because I choose to make it so, not because of a permission slip from a state bureaucracy.
jimmy, LMFAO!
“LeftGayBorgSpaceshipLibBabyKillingChristHating”
God, that was funny.
#7. “permission slip from a state bureaucracy”
So does that mean you’re against all state-sanctioned marriage, or just gay ones? If it’s just a permission slip, should we just get rid of it altogether? You know, to be consistent and all.
Wow jimmy, it’s interesting that you so quickly retreat from begging that your ‘feelings” be heeded on the issue of gay marriage.
Help me understand this, jimmy of the GayLeftBorg, why is gay marriage (and not unions) on the GayLeft’s agenda as priority #1 anyway. Your own political boss, Prez Clinton, axed that puppy with DOMA. Didn’t you get the memo?
It’s clear you never intend to be in a LTR. You never intend to have a family or become a constructive and meaningful part of your neighborhood, church, town or society. You don’t intend to abandon a lifestyle that is at odds with most societal values. You hate societal norms that cause you to restrict your most-base urges.
For you, it’s all about now. About you. About license to act outrageous in public. You’ve shown that here, over and over.
So why do you care so much about gay marriage, jimmy? Is it because the GayLeftBorg deemed it to be agenda item #1? Follow the leader, maybe?
I often wonder why a political goal which is only of interest to less than 31% of all gays (and most of them are conservative or moderates) is the #1 goal of the GayLeftBorg.
Could it be that you want to be able to enjoy the drama of getting engaged, planning a wedding, holding the party, acting like str8 couples and then have something more official at break-up time than just calling your former lover an “ex” and booting his butt from the apt? Trust me, there’s a lot more to it than the drama rush, jimmy.
It’s clear you don’t accept “conventional” societal standards… so why jimmy? I think it’s so that you and the radical activists have something to push and rally around. All drama, 24×7. It’s the gay activist cry.
I’m saying there’s entirely too much emotionalism in the issue and people should not look to government bureaucrats to pat them on the head and make them feel good about themselves. Or, rather, it’s pathetic that some people tie-up their self-esteem in what some judge or legislature decides.
I think committed monogamous heterosexual marriage benefits society in ways no other social arrangement does. In an ideal world, society would provide benefits only for that arrangement, while allowing all other arrangements to be worked out within contract law. Since that is untenable, legal parity within a ‘civil union’ type construct seems adequate to me. It’s only because pride and emotions get involved that people insist anything less than marriage denigrates them.
I note that on this issue, I am at odds with the authors of this blog and probably all of the participants. So, they ought not be tarnished with my opinion.
Now, let me give you jimmy’s response:
“I never said that. I said I am in favor of gay marriage and equal rights because it’s the right thing to do. It makes me feel good. I think our DofI gives us the right to marry because it says we should all be free to pursue anything we want as long as it makes us happy. And the Constitution says that states should make up marriage laws and that means we ought to be able to count a few activist judges to carry our water for us… Hell, I ruined a pair of Cole boots in the rain doing handouts at the anti-WorldBank rally last month… it’s the least my liberal lobotomized jurists can do for us in return. Besides, if we don’t get same sex marriage and equality, then the govt should pay us all reparations for the pain of being 2nd Class citizens. Did I mention I’m an illegal alien? On welfare? In a govt paid apt? Suing McDonalds?”
I think that catches the jimmy-angle. Or the BillMaher angle. Or the JonStewart angle.
So does that mean you’re against all state-sanctioned marriage, or just gay ones? If it’s just a permission slip, should we just get rid of it altogether? You know, to be consistent and all.
Perhaps you ought to read V the K’s original statement, Chris.
My life is valid because I choose to make it so, not because of a permission slip from a state bureaucracy.
V the K’s point was not that he was against gay marriage; it was that he doesn’t believe gays need marriage to be valid.
Now, tell us — why do you need marriage to be validated, Chris?
As both V the K and Michigan-Matt have shown, you can be gay, have kids, and not be married.
V the K’s point was not that he was against gay marriage; it was that he doesn’t believe gays need marriage to be valid.
That was my point. Thank you.
#11. “I think committed monogamous heterosexual marriage benefits society in ways no other social arrangement does. In an ideal world, society would provide benefits only for that arrangement, while allowing all other arrangements to be worked out within contract law. ” V the K
Thank you for your answer. I’m assuming that you are privileging heterosexual marriage in large part because of children. But if you truly feel this way, how can you justify your adopting children, and why should the state approve your adopting children?
I note that on this issue, I am at odds with the authors of this blog and probably all of the participants. So, they ought not be tarnished with my opinion.
Not necessarily, V the K.
I like your ideal-world vision — where, from a legal standpoint, marriage is less of a fixed menu and more of a buffet.
However, from a practical standpoint, I also agree that the historical and cultural context of marriage, plus the fact that it as written covers over 95% of the population, puts it in a different category.
My preferred and pragmatic solution, then, is to leave het marriage alone, but systematically work on making some of the benefits traditionally associated with marriage, i.e. pension inheritability, more accessible to the unmarried.
The reason, honestly, that I think most liberal gays are “marriage or bust” is because so much of their ideology is rooted in the ultrafeminist “women are the same as men” mantra that ignores biology, psychology, and common sense.
Let’s face it. Most Americans are aware of the fact that the vast bulk of benefits and protections in marriage are related to having children. When one thinks about it, that is because a man and a woman can produce a child without any other legal arrangements being required. A gay couple, or even an infertile straight couple, MUST work out custody agreements, adoptions, and the like before being allowed to have a child in the first place. That doesn’t mean that gays or infertile couples are inferior — just different.
However, to these liberal gays, acknowledging the slightest difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals means that homosexuals are inferior — and they can’t tolerate that.
I’m assuming that you are privileging heterosexual marriage in large part because of children. But if you truly feel this way, how can you justify your adopting children, and why should the state approve your adopting children?
Because, as I just pointed out, heterosexual marriage in and of itself can produce children.
V the K can’t (at least, I don’t think so 🙂 ).
Because V the K has adopted children, though, he receives many of the tax benefits, etc., that come from having dependents, and his children are eligible to receive his Social Security, etc., upon his death.
To repeat what I said above, children work as a reason for treating heterosexual marriage differently because it’s the only type of relationship that can produce them without additional legal structuring and work.
But if you truly feel this way, how can you justify your adopting children, and why should the state approve your adopting children?
My family arrangement is not ideal, but it is superior to a group home. That it is less ideal than a traditional family is a reality I deal with. It does not impact my sense of validation or self-worth.
As to why the state should approve the adoption, one could argue for a libertatrian system in which private and faith-based charity would do a better job of dealing with children who are orphaned, or whose parents are unfit. But, within the system that has been constructed (which sucks by the way), there has been a social consensus, arrived at through democratic means, that gives the state responsibility over those children. Having given the state that responsibility to safeguard children in that situation, the licensing and approval of foster parents through a defined bureaucratic process is a natural and logical consequence. I may not agree with it, but accept the legitimacy of the system that produced. The same would apply to SSM if it arose through a social consensus, arrived at through democratic means.
#18. Would the state, through democratic means, be justified in denying adoption to non-heterosexual couples?
#19: It would. Because we have a democratic system, and because under this system it has been decided that certain children are placed into the care of the state, then the responsibility for deciding who is qualified and who is not is a social responsibility that has been ceded to the state, and as such is subject to democratic resolution. The only exception would be in the case of a Constitutional amendment that specifically covers the right to foster and adopt.
Thus, there is a responsibility for those who believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to foster and adopt to participate in the democratic debate. The possibility that the debate might not turn out to their liking is less damaging then the silencing of debate, or allowing the issue to be decided by a small cadre of elitists.
It is interesting to not that John McCain, much beloved by some gay ‘moderates’ like Andrew Sullivan, has hired for his point-man in South Carolina, a state senator who has introduced numerous bills in the SC legislature to ban gay fostering and adoption.
This is ridiculous…Of course we don’t need legal sanction to feel that we are valid people but we do need legal sanction to experience full participation in society and we should have it…
How, exactly, does the fact that I am not allowed to marry another man deny me “full participation” in society?
#9: So does that mean you’re against all state-sanctioned marriage, or just gay ones? If it’s just a permission slip, should we just get rid of it altogether? You know, to be consistent and all.
That is definitely my goal, to achieve a separation of marriage and state. (But I’m rooting for those who want to make marriage law equal for gay couples while we’re stuck with that law.)
NDT, I would propose that not being able to legally marry your same sex partner excludes you from full participation by denying you all the rights and privileges that homosexual couples have immediately upon filing the marriage certificate. No bank will question your joint account (as ours did). Probate courts would give the suriving spouse the estate when a late spouse has not left a will. Two limited examples, I grant you, but my point being that right now even those of us in registered “domestic partnerships” have to go to great legal expense to create the contractual relationships that marriage automatically provides to heterosexual couples in every state and from the federal government. A great many homosexual couples can’t afford this paperwork. In the case of marriage, to me at least, that’s not allowing same sex couple full participation in society. I imagine you disagree, and I respect that.
Maybe it only 31% of us that want marriage. But should it matter what percentage it is? And yes, we should be pushing the legislatures and the hearts of the people instead, but that’s not where we find ourselves.
#17: To repeat what I said above, children work as a reason for treating heterosexual marriage differently because it’s the only type of relationship that can produce them without additional legal structuring and work.
Why does it harm this arrangement to open it up for couples who cannot conceive children? I know what I’m about to say has become trite, but it’s still true: if marriage is open to infertile couples, senior citizens, and even those serving life in prison, it seems clear to me that having children is not really the essentiall purpose of marriage, at least in the eyes of the law. And so I cannot see it as a rational reason for leaving gay couples out of it, either. (As long as the government gets involved at all. :))
For those of you hyperventilating over the NJ Supreme Court decision, you would be well-advised to read this little tidbit regarding marriage amendments on the November 7 ballot in eight states:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MaggieGallagher/2006/10/24/state_marriage_amendment_and_gay_rights_new_dilemmas
Sounds like HRC sold a bunch of people down the river.
Regards,
Peter H.
#20: Thanks for your comments. I think a lot of the tension on this site stems from concept of inalienable rights versus privileges bequeathed by democratic consensus. I think that most people who seek court intervention on the issue of same-sex marriage and adoption do so not out of hostility to the democratic process, but because they truly believe these are rights that should not be subject to popular vote. I’m not going to debate constitutional law here, but I would add that Blacks fought for rights which were not yet enumerated, but that most people today would consider inalienable.
Myself, I tend to favor strict equality under the law. I am suspicious whenever a particular group is privileged, either by custom or “nature”. In those cases, it really must be demonstrated that continued discrimination is justified. I would rather see equal civil unions for both heterosexual and gay couples, with the loaded title “marriage” reserved for churches as they see fit to bestow.
Why does it harm this arrangement to open it up for couples who cannot conceive children? I know what I’m about to say has become trite, but it’s still true: if marriage is open to infertile couples, senior citizens, and even those serving life in prison, it seems clear to me that having children is not really the essentiall purpose of marriage, at least in the eyes of the law.
That is basically using a tiny fraction of the number of couples that marry to disprove the whole.
A better way of putting it would be this: while it’s not a certainty that a heterosexual couple will produce children, it is a certainty that a gay couple won’t.
That in and of itself is a rather compelling argument for treating them differently from a legal standpoint.
As to Mike’s point, that’s a matter of perspective. Male-female couples quite often are questioned about their relationship when they open joint accounts. Wills are always subject to contesting, even when you are married, as Anna Nicole Smith found out.
And honestly, one of my pet peeves is gays saying “we can’t afford the paperwork”. Gay-rights organizations and gay people spend millions of dollars on legal fees every year. The problem is that they prefer to waste the money on frivolous lawsuits that do nothing but piss off voters, rather than on helping actual gay people secure the benefits and protections that already exist.
My take is simply that we will find much more public support if we work on making common benefits that come with marriage accessible to more people. The recent pension reform bill, which allows willing retirement benefits to a person other than a spouse without tax penalty, is a good example.
NDT, I can’t argue with you in terms of dollars being wasted by advocacy groups. I speka only from my own experience, in that my partner and I have not had the financial resources to pay a lawyer for all the paperwork. For the same reasons, we don’t give to any gay-right advocacy group of either political persuasion.
I see your point, of course. Those groups could do more to support people. I only make the point about individual couples, not the groups in aggregate.
As always, it remains an interesting debate on the site.
How pathetically insecure do you have to be to think your life and love doesn’t matter unless it’s validated by a state bureaucracy.
I agree with this. If the government decided tomorrow that they weren’t going to recognize marriage tomorrow, I wouldn’t feel any less married-it isn’t the government that makes my marriage valid, but the promises I made before God to my husband that make us married.
That said I am not opposed to gay marriage, I just think it is something that should be achieved through the legislative proccess, and courts telling the legislature that they must make a law doesn’t count-since it is in effect the court strong arming the legislature to get their way. I think gay marriage coming through the courts hurts more than helps the movement, and I think contributed to the backlash of all those marriage amendments. Going the legislative route is slower, but I think less contentious and volatile. Connecticut opted for civil unions, and hardly a peep was heard from conservatives (Dobson or Robertson may have complained, but I didn’t see it or read about it-so their complaints didn’t reach too far).
I actually think no fault divorce did far more harm to the institution of marriage than gay marriage ever would or could.
As for the NJ voters wanting gay marriage, then the voters should advocate for it to their legislature, not depend on the court to make the decision for them.
“To repeat what I said above, children work as a reason for treating heterosexual marriage differently because it’s the only type of relationship that can produce them without additional legal structuring and work. ”
Biologically not quite accurate, since children result not from heterosexual couples but from heterosexual couplings. Lesbians can get pregnant by whoever they can talk into it, and those children are the mother’s to raise; and gays can get women pregnant, have themselves registered as the fathers, and then just raise them when the mother skips out. Rare, but possible. The relationship between the adults these kids grow up in do not have the same legal as married couples. Simple legal fact. What protects the “parental” invstment of the other “parent” over the years?
You may say that the other “parent” does not and should not have any parental rights, but then why is that handled differently for heterosexual couples. Many men raise children that are in fact not their own, without any adoption process at all. Women fuck around, quite a lot, especially when they are sure their bastards will have a meal ticket, but in a straight marriage paternity is an irrefutable presumption in common law – the man has no responsible to even assert fatherhood..
We may disagree about whether this is a matter of inanlienable right or of law, as a commenter pointed out above. Historically the presence or absence of children has not been what has determined who could marry, or could marry whom. Miscengenation laws are an example where the possiblity of children did not ensure a right to marry.
#10 and #12. LOL. “GayLeftBorg”!! What is that, really? Are you expecting to be taken seriously when you use–what is it, Star Trek language or something?–terms like that? The hysterical nonsense in #12 tells me that a nerve was struck. Sorry about that. My hypothetical response was about arguments; notice who went ad hominem.
Now, having apologized for striking a nerve, let’s get back to bashing the gays and lesbians of New Jersey, folks!!!
You may say that the other “parent” does not and should not have any parental rights, but then why is that handled differently for heterosexual couples. Many men raise children that are in fact not their own, without any adoption process at all.
True.
However, simply marrying someone’s mother does not legally make you their father, or vice versa.
As V the K can tell us, I’m sure, adoption is actually a two-part process. People tend to think only of the part of your assuming legal responsibility for a child — but they forget that, in order for you to do that, the parental rights of the biological parent(s) need to be proactively waived or revoked in the first place.
The classic example of what you are describing is when a woman has kids, gets divorced, and remarries. She is still the children’s mother in every legal respect; however, her marriage does not automatically grant the status of legal parent to the man she marries. The adoption process runs independently of the marriage process. Any kids that she and her new husband produce, however, will be both theirs.
#28: A better way of putting it would be this: while it’s not a certainty that a heterosexual couple will produce children, it is a certainty that a gay couple won’t.
That in and of itself is a rather compelling argument for treating them differently from a legal standpoint.
It is not at all compelling for me. I believe that my relationship is the same, in all essentials, as one I might have with a woman if I was straight. I do not believe the fact that I can’t conceive children with my boyfriend, while it’s least theoretically possible for heterosexual couples to conceive children, changes the nature of our commitment in any way. It just doesn’t make sense to my brain or to my heart that that is really an essential feature separating my relationship from, say, my parents’.
Color me surprised;
“…Only rights that are deeply rooted in the traditions, history, and conscience of the people are deemed to be fundamental. 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. With this State’s legislative and judicial commitment to eradicating sexual orientation discrimination as our backdrop, we now hold that denying rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples that are statutorily given to their heterosexual counterparts violates the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1. To comply with this constitutional mandate, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure, which will provide for, on equal terms, the rights and benefits enjoyed and burdens and obligations borne by married couples. 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. “
On the way home, I caught an interview with one of the lesbian couples involved in the NJ case. When asked about civil unions that would give identical rights, she said (or, to more properly characterize her tone of voice, shrieked) “Civil unions are unacceptable. Anything less than marriage is unacceptable because we won’t feel equal.” (paraphrasing a bit.)
I’m going to take my point that the case is more about people looking for approval and self esteem from the government as validated.
If the local and National G/L activists get all wrapped-up in “gay marriage or nothing” to the point where they alienate the good-will of the NJ electorate over civil unions being “unacceptable”, they’ll just play into the hands of the bigots and haters who want to block both. The battle now is not about “rights”, it’s now ONLY about a label…let’s quietly just keep it that way. Making a big fuss will just alienate those of good-faith who just aren’t ready for “gay marraige”, but feel that all relationships deserve protection. Since the State Court set a very-high standard by stating that civil unions must be exactly the same as marriage, what’s the fuss? Connecticut’s civil unions are somewhat watered-down compared to marriage there. New Jersey’s court sent a strong message that it must be “equal”, and I think that in the long-run this is the precedent that will open other doors…not that there’s some unwritten right to marriage in the Constitution, it’s that “we” must all be treated equally.
If the G/L activists kick this one to the curb over a word…they deserve what they get when the backlash to their obstanance kicks them in the teeth. Fools…..
“You forgot to mention that thing called a Constitution.”
Oops, try again. There’s not a single syllable about gay marriage in the Constitution.
Oops, try again. There’s not a single syllable about gay marriage in the Constitution.
Sure, but you know the Framers meant the principles of the Constitution to include many specific concepts that could not possibly be enumerated in a casuist fashion. It was meant to limit the power of government in many specific ways (Article I, Section 8 and most of the Bill of Rights) and some general ones (the 9th and 10th Amendments).
With regard to the US Constitution, I think the relevant passage is in fact Article I, Section 8. Congress has no power to get involved in marriage at all, so it should never have gotten into it, for instance with DOMA.
jimmy at #32… you can dodge away jimmy; you’re practiced at that. I always like it when one of the GayLeftBorggies here disconnects for a second and thinks beyond “da Masta’ talkin points from da Democrat Plantation”. Good for you jimmy but your response lacked substance.
Nothing hysterical hit by you; just a parody of your usual rants and spew there jimmy-boi.
Try answering the questions –they’l lead you into some introspection on your part.
#40. “Borggies” and “Plantations” now, huh? I’m starting to think that this blog is a comic book.
There were no questions to answer. But you do like saying things like, “Try answering the questions–they’ll lead you into some introspection on your part.” It sounds so, well, sophisticated. The fact of the matter was this: you went ad hominem, which renders you a loser, even in grade school debating clubs.
And for the future, note: when asking someone to answer questions, you should pose some first.
Hey jimmy, you could have caught the questions on your own in 10 if you were really interested in answering… but don’t try to dodge, weave, dance and spin like they didn’t exist. Busted jimmy. Busted once again.
Add comprehension to your list of “Improved Skills Needed”. Introspection works, jimmyboi. But you have to have character for it to be of any value.
“You forgot to mention that thing called a Constitution.”
Oops, try again. There’s not a single syllable about gay marriage in the Constitution.
Comment by rightwingprof — October 26, 2006 @ 1:30 pm – October 26, 2006
Theres nothing in the Constitution about women voting, or freeing slaves, or Inter-racial marriage, or segregation…..so what’s your point? The Constitution is used to GIVE people more rights..NOT LESS!