New Jersey Supreme Court to announce ruling on Gay Marriage

[Craig234]

No mater what happens, it is the people via the legislative branch that decided. I am ok with that

Well, Shrumpage since you bolded this and gave it a thumbs up, let's talk for a moment about the concept of constitutional rights.

The right wing, *when it wants a certain outcome that a majority favors*, will scream and yell about letting the people and not judges decide.

But take a deep breath and calm down and ask then, why we have a constitution with rights rather than just majority-passed laws.

It's because society recognizes that the tyranny of the majority is a real risk, and some rights deserve protection from 51% of the voters.

Do we really want republicans who get 51% of the vote out passing laws that democrats are not allowed to speak publically, can be searched as harrassment, and can be improsioned without a lawyer or trial? Probably not. So some rights require a super-majority, not a simple majority, to remove.

You can spout a polemic all you like about 'the pepople deciding', but ultimately, you are against the founders' constitution if you carry that over to the idea of the simply majority not having to respect basic rights in the constitution. The founding fathers said to the simple majority, 'shut up and sit down' when they become a mob.

So, the simple rhetoric doesn't do justice to the idea of gay marriage - the question is not the hyperble about the people ruling, it's whether the constitution has protection for equal rights in this case, something for judges (and hopefully, not the ideological radicals Bush appoints) to decide.

But the basic idea that the right to equality might be contained in the constitution and the 51% have to deal with it is not a problem, it's the American system.

Finally, in anticipation of your argument that rights have to be spelled out simply, that's not how they wrote the constitution, either. Some rights are, others are not. Go read the 9th and 10th amendments some time, just as important as the others, and tell me what specific rights they give we the people.

 

[classy]

Well I am against gay marriage. Hopefully they ban it on a federal level.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: classy
Well I am against gay marriage. Hopefully they ban it on a federal level.

Well I'm against bigots, Hopefully you will grow out of yours.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Wouldn't a ruling like this help Republicans by stirring up the gay marriage debate again? Especially if it allows out of state couples to get married.

Somehow I think that a decision made in favor of more civil rights is more important than which party gains a political advantage from the situation. :roll:

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: classy
Well I am against gay marriage. Hopefully they ban it on a federal level.

Well I'm against bigots, Hopefully you will grow out of yours.

One I am not a bigot.
Two I just don't support homosexual marriages and there is nothing wrong with how I feel either.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: classy
Well I am against gay marriage. Hopefully they ban it on a federal level.

Well I'm against bigots, Hopefully you will grow out of yours.

One I am not a bigot.
Two I just don't support homosexual marriages and there is nothing wrong with how I feel either.

and that's why we need protection from the majority

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: classy
Well I am against gay marriage. Hopefully they ban it on a federal level.

Well I'm against bigots, Hopefully you will grow out of yours.

One I am not a bigot.
Two I just don't support homosexual marriages and there is nothing wrong with how I feel either.

You want to deny equality under the law to one group for no rationally defensible reason, other than that you "just don't" want to treat them equally, you "feel" that way.

You are a bigot. Not all bigots realize they are. I've read diaries of slave owners during the civil war who were *shocked* their loving, well-treated slaves joing the north.

Ask the people who blocked blacks from colleges in the deep south. They weren't bigots; they just respected tradition, they just supported states rights. No bigotry at all.

Ask the people who opposed inter-racial marriage. No bigotry at all - they just respected the 'definition of marriage', they just respected 'natural law', and tradition too.

You are a bigot.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: classy
Well I am against gay marriage. Hopefully they ban it on a federal level.

Move to Iran or anywhere in ME. They know how to deal with gays.
http://www.tidmus.com/blog/images/iran_new_photo_400.jpg

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Where is Zendari to bitch about this (IIRC he claims to be from NJ)? Was he finally banned for a third time?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: classy
Well I am against gay marriage. Hopefully they ban it on a federal level.

Well I'm against bigots, Hopefully you will grow out of yours.

One I am not a bigot.
Two I just don't support homosexual marriages and there is nothing wrong with how I feel either.

You want to deny equality under the law to one group for no rationally defensible reason, other than that you "just don't" want to treat them equally, you "feel" that way. He lives by that 'truth' in the Bible that talks all about slaves.

You are a bigot. Not all bigots realize they are. I've read diaries of slave owners during the civil war who were *shocked* their loving, well-treated slaves joing the north.

Ask the people who blocked blacks from colleges in the deep south. They weren't bigots; they just respected tradition, they just supported states rights. No bigotry at all.

Ask the people who opposed inter-racial marriage. No bigotry at all - they just respected the 'definition of marriage', they just respected 'natural law', and tradition too.

You are a bigot.

Classy is black and knows all about bigotry. He just has a hard time understanding that when it comes to homosexuality he is a bigot too. His contempt for bigots has caused a big split in his self. He is a victim of certainty.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Classy is black and knows all about bigotry. He just has a hard time understanding that when it comes to homosexuality he is a bigot too. His contempt for bigots has caused a big split in his self. He is a victim of certainty.

Oh boy here we go, Moonie and his philosophy. To be honest I have absolutely no idea what you just posted means. But here's the deal. Anyone who says this is the same as inter-racial marriage is clueless. Marriage has always been between a man and woman. And inter-racial marriage didn't change that. Trust me, this I know first hand . But two guys or two women is very very different. Hey people are entitled to do whatever the law affords them. If they allow homosexuals to get married, then so be it. But to abhor homosexual marriage is not bigotry. Am I a bigot if I don't think a person should have sex with an animal? Am I a bigot because I believe a man shouldn't sleep with prostitutes? Am I a bigot because I don't believe in polygamy?

I don't believe homosexual men can be leaders of young men. I don't believe they should be in the military. They can't be a representative of manhood either. Women can be strong with having to act manly or be lesbians. Its wrong that a homosexual can go to the same bathroom or even take a shower with me in a public place and its okay. But yet I can't go to the ladies room or shower with them. Why not? A homosexual can get their rocks off and get eye fulls of "goodies", but I can't.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Craig234

No mater what happens, it is the people via the legislative branch that decided. I am ok with that

Well, Shrumpage since you bolded this and gave it a thumbs up, let's talk for a moment about the concept of constitutional rights.

The right wing, *when it wants a certain outcome that a majority favors*, will scream and yell about letting the people and not judges decide.

But take a deep breath and calm down and ask then, why we have a constitution with rights rather than just majority-passed laws.

It's because society recognizes that the tyranny of the majority is a real risk, and some rights deserve protection from 51% of the voters.

Do we really want republicans who get 51% of the vote out passing laws that democrats are not allowed to speak publically, can be searched as harrassment, and can be improsioned without a lawyer or trial? Probably not. So some rights require a super-majority, not a simple majority, to remove.

You can spout a polemic all you like about 'the pepople deciding', but ultimately, you are against the founders' constitution if you carry that over to the idea of the simply majority not having to respect basic rights in the constitution. The founding fathers said to the simple majority, 'shut up and sit down' when they become a mob.

So, the simple rhetoric doesn't do justice to the idea of gay marriage - the question is not the hyperble about the people ruling, it's whether the constitution has protection for equal rights in this case, something for judges (and hopefully, not the ideological radicals Bush appoints) to decide.

But the basic idea that the right to equality might be contained in the constitution and the 51% have to deal with it is not a problem, it's the American system.

Finally, in anticipation of your argument that rights have to be spelled out simply, that's not how they wrote the constitution, either. Some rights are, others are not. Go read the 9th and 10th amendments some time, just as important as the others, and tell me what specific rights they give we the people.

We both now the symantics of same-sex marriage arguments. Everything from marriage not being right, to rights are granted to individuals not relationships, etc, etc...

I was just supporting my preferred method of making law, particularly when it comes to "rights." Was Women's sufferage decided by three judges? no it wasn't. It went through the states and then through congress.

Civil rights, same thing was it decided by a three judge panel? It went through the process of the states and then through congress, thus becoming law.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: classy
I don't believe homosexual men can be leaders of young men.

Why can white heterosexual men be leaders of young men?

Originally posted by: classy
I don't believe they should be in the military.

Why can black heterosexual people be in the military?

Originally posted by: classy
They can't be a representative of manhood either.

Why can asian heterosexual men be representative of manhood?

Is it because they're "normal"? Why are heterosexual native americans, who make up a smaller percentage of the population than homosexuals, more able to lead and serve than homosexuals?

 

[Craig234]

We both now the symantics of same-sex marriage arguments. Everything from marriage not being right, to rights are granted to individuals not relationships, etc, etc...

I was just supporting my preferred method of making law, particularly when it comes to "rights." Was Women's sufferage decided by three judges? no it wasn't. It went through the states and then through congress.

Civil rights, same thing was it decided by a three judge panel? It went through the process of the states and then through congress, thus becoming law.

Each has its place, depending what the consitution says. Inter-racial marriage rights *were* decided by a court; Brown v. Board of Education was too.

What's so wrong with that?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Classy is black and knows all about bigotry. He just has a hard time understanding that when it comes to homosexuality he is a bigot too. His contempt for bigots has caused a big split in his self. He is a victim of certainty.

Oh boy here we go, Moonie and his philosophy. To be honest I have absolutely no idea what you just posted means. But here's the deal. Anyone who says this is the same as inter-racial marriage is clueless. Marriage has always been between a man and woman. And inter-racial marriage didn't change that. Trust me, this I know first hand . But two guys or two women is very very different. Hey people are entitled to do whatever the law affords them. If they allow homosexuals to get married, then so be it. But to abhor homosexual marriage is not bigotry. Am I a bigot if I don't think a person should have sex with an animal? Am I a bigot because I believe a man shouldn't sleep with prostitutes? Am I a bigot because I don't believe in polygamy?

I don't believe homosexual men can be leaders of young men. I don't believe they should be in the military. They can't be a representative of manhood either. Women can be strong with having to act manly or be lesbians. Its wrong that a homosexual can go to the same bathroom or even take a shower with me in a public place and its okay. But yet I can't go to the ladies room or shower with them. Why not? A homosexual can get their rocks off and get eye fulls of "goodies", but I can't.

Jeez louise. If someone posted this kind of bigotry regarding African-Americans, you'd be hammering them like a 4" nail (and appropriately so).

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Classy is black and knows all about bigotry. He just has a hard time understanding that when it comes to homosexuality he is a bigot too. His contempt for bigots has caused a big split in his self. He is a victim of certainty.

Oh boy here we go, Moonie and his philosophy. To be honest I have absolutely no idea what you just posted means. But here's the deal. Anyone who says this is the same as inter-racial marriage is clueless. Marriage has always been between a man and woman. And inter-racial marriage didn't change that. Trust me, this I know first hand . But two guys or two women is very very different. Hey people are entitled to do whatever the law affords them. If they allow homosexuals to get married, then so be it. But to abhor homosexual marriage is not bigotry. Am I a bigot if I don't think a person should have sex with an animal? Am I a bigot because I believe a man shouldn't sleep with prostitutes? Am I a bigot because I don't believe in polygamy?

I don't believe homosexual men can be leaders of young men. I don't believe they should be in the military. They can't be a representative of manhood either. Women can be strong with having to act manly or be lesbians. Its wrong that a homosexual can go to the same bathroom or even take a shower with me in a public place and its okay. But yet I can't go to the ladies room or shower with them. Why not? A homosexual can get their rocks off and get eye fulls of "goodies", but I can't.

I think the supreme irony here is that much of the stuff you listed was said openly about blacks 50 years ago.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Where is Zendari to bitch about this (IIRC he claims to be from NJ)? Was he finally banned for a third time?

Were he still able to post you know he would have jumped all over this ruling. 3rd strike and your out?

 

[nageov3t]

I hate the "it's always been this way" argument.

if you really want to embrace traditional marriage, legalize polygramy and legalize fathers selling off their daughters at 14 regardless of the soon-to-be wife's wishes (women are basically property, after all, if we're embracing the historical definition of marriage)... I guess we should also legalize men clubbing women over the head and claiming them as their wife since that's the historical root of marriage too.

the fact is, marriage (and similar institutions) have always been evolving as society evolves, and always will. you may hate homosexuals. you may believe they're all pedophiles intent on turning billions of young men gay and long for nothing but to lust after you in the shower... go wild, good for you. it's your right to believe that. but you can't (well, shouldn't) legislate your own personal views at the expense of scores of people who are (well, should be) garunteed equal protection in the eyes of the law. it's not like anyone is -- or even can -- forcing churches (and God, if that's a concern) to perform or recognize the marriage.

(and before the argument even comes up -- animals can't consent. children can't consent. polygamy? **** it. go and legalize it... how many women do you know that would put up with having to share their husband? )

 

[Corporate Thug]

I think this was a FANTASTIC decision: its hard to argue that same sex couples arent afforded equal rights under the US constitution (let alone the NJ state constitution which is more protective of individual rights) but the "title" should be left up to the democratic process.

God, i never thought i would ever agree with anything coming out of Jersey

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: classy
Well I am against gay marriage. Hopefully they ban it on a federal level.

Well thanks for open honest hate and discrimination.

Hopefully soon it will become so unbearable for with the people you hate having the same rights as you that you leave this great Country.

 

[blackllotus]

Just another side note, even though the ruling was 4:3 NONE of the judges were against providing the same rights for gay couples. It turns out that the three dissenters actually wanted to go further with the ruling and make gay marriage legal.

The court's vote was 4-to-3. But the ruling was more strongly in favor of same-sex marriage than that split would indicate. The three dissenting justices argued the court should have extended full marriage rights to homosexuals, without kicking the issue back to legislators.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: classy
Well I am against gay marriage. Hopefully they ban it on a federal level.

Well thanks for open honest hate and discrimination.

Hopefully soon it will become so unbearable for with the people you hate having the same rights as you that you leave this great Country.

Oh I see, because I was born black, then that means I have to support any other group who is trying to get rights to support their behavior, even if I disagree with them. Wow, now that's racist as hell. I can't object to someone's behavior because I'm black. So I guess its back to a being just a N^**((*)&) and not a person who has a right like any other white person who may object as well. But I have to accept because of my color. I have never said discriminate based on person's sex, race, color, or religion. I never even said discriminate based on a person's sexual preference either. All I have said is I disagree with them being afforded the right to legal marriage, thats it. But according to the cool koolaid kids here I can't object because of the color of my skin. LOL What a joke.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: classy
Well I am against gay marriage. Hopefully they ban it on a federal level.

Well thanks for open honest hate and discrimination.

Hopefully soon it will become so unbearable for with the people you hate having the same rights as you that you leave this great Country.

Oh I see, because I was born black, then that means I have to support any other group who is trying to get rights to support their behavior, even if I disagree with them. Wow, now that's racist as hell. I can't object to someone's behavior because I'm black. So I guess its back to a being just a N^**((*)&) and not a person who has a right like any other white person who may object as well. But I have to accept because of my color. I have never said discriminate based on person's sex, race, color, or religion. I never even said discriminate based on a person's sexual preference either. All I have said is I disagree with them being afforded the right to legal marriage, thats it. But according to the cool koolaid kids here I can't object because of the color of my skin. LOL What a joke.

all you said was you dont want other people having the same rights as you.

right?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: classy
Oh I see, because I was born black, then that means I have to support any other group who is trying to get rights to support their behavior, even if I disagree with them. Wow, now that's racist as hell.

No, but coming from a group that has suffered discrimination, one might think you'd be a little less bigoted and more understanding about another group that is suffering similar persecution.

What did gays, as a group, ever do to you to warrant your closed minded unwillingness to allow them to live their own lives? Did they rape your dog? Did they pervert your parakeet? :roll:

Clue -- Your personal tastes and sexual preferences don't mean anything in this discussion. Either do any or the teachings of your religion.

You're talking about imposing your personal preferences on other human beings totally unrelated to your existence. Unless you've got some real, overriding reason why you should be allowed to do that, you are a bigot, and a strange one at that.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: classy
Well I am against gay marriage. Hopefully they ban it on a federal level.

Well thanks for open honest hate and discrimination.

Hopefully soon it will become so unbearable for with the people you hate having the same rights as you that you leave this great Country.

Oh I see, because I was born black, then that means I have to support any other group who is trying to get rights to support their behavior, even if I disagree with them. Wow, now that's racist as hell. I can't object to someone's behavior because I'm black. So I guess its back to a being just a N^**((*)&) and not a person who has a right like any other white person who may object as well. But I have to accept because of my color. I have never said discriminate based on person's sex, race, color, or religion. I never even said discriminate based on a person's sexual preference either. All I have said is I disagree with them being afforded the right to legal marriage, thats it. But according to the cool koolaid kids here I can't object because of the color of my skin. LOL What a joke.

This has nothing to do with you being black and everything to do with you being a hypocrite. If you think it's OK to treat people differently based on sexual preference, it would follow that you think it's OK to treat people differently because of their race. Since (I assume) you DON'T think the latter point is true, I don't see how you can agree with the former.

Now if all you're saying is that you personally believe that gay people are "bad", that's ok. I still think you're a narrow-minded person, but even narrow-minded people have a right to their opinion. Where the line has to be drawn is whether or not you think the government should enforce your narrow-mindedness as public policy...because that's a whole different kettle of fish, something I would think folks who AREN'T straight, white, Christian males would understand better than anyone else.