New Jersey Supreme Court to announce ruling on Gay Marriage

[classy]

Originally posted by: 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.

Oh I get it now, silly me . I am just suppose to be more sympathetic because I'm black. Now how could I possibly not understand that great wisdom.
Oh I get it now, because my skin is black, that in some way, lol, should help me understand why some guy is bending over some other guy and now they wanna get married, have kids by any means necessary, and have house with a white picket fence.
Man I tell you this is getting better by the moment, unbelievable.

 

[UberNeuman]

Classy, let me ask you a question. Tomorrow, gay marriage is quite legal throughout the U.S. - how does this affect your life?....

/just wonderin'

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: 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.

Oh I get it now, silly me . I am just suppose to be more sympathetic because I'm black. Now how could I possibly not understand that great wisdom.
Oh I get it now, because my skin is black, that in some way, lol, should help me understand why some guy is bending over some other guy and now they wanna get married, have kids by any means necessary, and have house with a white picket fence.
Man I tell you this is getting better by the moment, unbelievable.

*cough*

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

right?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: classy
But according to the cool koolaid kids here I can't object because of the color of my skin

Nobody is saying you can't object. It is just confusing that you choose to take a dump on all the equality that your race fought for by advocating discrimination against another group of people.

Originally posted by: classy
All I have said is I disagree with them being afforded the right to legal marriage, thats it.

Wrong. Don't lie. You said,

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.

Lets say I said "I don't believe black 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." How is this any different from what you just said?

 

[glenn1]

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.

That would have been a ruling where that would have usurped the powers of the legislative branch and would have been legislation by fiat. To prove that assertion, theoretically the legislature could have ceased recognizing or granting marriages period (whether or not it allowed for civil unions for all comers), in which case no one would have standing to assert unequal dispensation of rights.

 

[Craig234]

The bigotry of classy is disgusting; glenn1, to your point, you did not prove that it would have 'usurped the powers of the legislative branch'.

If equality was required, it was required - and the legislature's ability to change marriage for eveyone is irrelevant to the fact it has to be defined the same for gays and straights.

It's too bad they fell one vote short of that, if the law did say it, and too bad the law didn't say it if it didn't.

 

[Zebo]

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 you don't have to support them, I don't like thier lifestyle much either but you have no right to take rights away from them or relegate them to second class status. It's unjust and you know it. Same goes for porn producers, crack heads or Asians or any other human being someone might not like for one reason or another. We all deserve to be treated with equality under the law and not be discriminated against, even Muslims

 

[sandorski]

Government shouldn't be defining "Marriage" one way or the other. That's the crux of the problem right there. Either give Religion back the Institution it claims as theirs and remove all Legal/Tax references to it or define the Secular concept of Civil Union where any 2 Consenting Adults enter into a Legal and Binding agreement.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Government shouldn't be defining "Marriage" one way or the other. That's the crux of the problem right there. Either give Religion back the Institution it claims as theirs and remove all Legal/Tax references to it or define the Secular concept of Civil Union where any 2 Consenting Adults enter into a Legal and Binding agreement.

A move to calling all marriages a "Civil Union" may seem logical in theory, however it is highly impractical in practice since there would be almost total resistance to it.

 

[glenn1]

If equality was required, it was required - and the legislature's ability to change marriage for eveyone is irrelevant to the fact it has to be defined the same for gays and straights

Re-read my statement. If the legislative branch repealed all marriage laws, it would by definition be impossible for there to be unequal dispensation of rights.

 

[Infohawk]

Bad timing if you want the Democrats to win...

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: glenn1

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.

That would have been a ruling where that would have usurped the powers of the legislative branch and would have been legislation by fiat. To prove that assertion, theoretically the legislature could have ceased recognizing or granting marriages period (whether or not it allowed for civil unions for all comers), in which case no one would have standing to assert unequal dispensation of rights.

Looking at it that way Brown v. Board and tons of other rulings which desegregated the legislatedly segregated south was writting new legislation too.

 

[glenn1]

Looking at it that way Brown v. Board and tons of other rulings which desegregated the legislatedly segregated south was writting new legislation too.

Same principle applies. There is no Constitutional obligation for the states to provide public education to its citizens, just as there is no requirement to make marriage statutorally available; and in both cases it would have been an infrigement on the legislative branch if they had ruled that way. Just as in this discussion, if you stop providing the service to all then it's no longer a 14th Amendment issue.

 

[ProfJohn]

Great e-mail from National Review Online Link

I am reading the NJ decision. So far, I think I want to marry my mother. Seriously. Our relationship could not be more committed, and I want her to enjoy my health care insurance. The legislature doesn't have to call it "marriage." They can call it "Mommiage."

He has a point, if we can define 'marriage' as between a man and a man, why can't we define it in anyway we want?

Another great e-mail from NRO

If NJ says that "committed" same-sex couples must be afforded the rights of married heterosexual couples, under the NJ constitution, shouldn't unmarried heterosexual couples be afforded the same rights as married couples?

 

[JD50]

Equal rights for everyone right guys? So I can bring my dog, cat, 4 girls I picked up at a bar the other night, a couple of guys I met yesterday, my twin sisters, and some underage congressional pages and we can all get married and have one big happy family right?

If your argument is "equal rights for everyone" then you must agree with this.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JD50
Equal rights for everyone right guys? So I can bring my dog, cat, 4 girls I picked up at a bar the other night, a couple of guys I met yesterday, my twin sisters, and some underage congressional pages and we can all get married and have one big happy family right?

If your argument is "equal rights for everyone" then you must agree with this.

Actually, no they don't.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50
Equal rights for everyone right guys? So I can bring my dog, cat, 4 girls I picked up at a bar the other night, a couple of guys I met yesterday, my twin sisters, and some underage congressional pages and we can all get married and have one big happy family right?

If your argument is "equal rights for everyone" then you must agree with this.

Actually, no they don't.

But its my right. Why must I be a second class citizen?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: JD50
Equal rights for everyone right guys? So I can bring my dog, cat, 4 girls I picked up at a bar the other night, a couple of guys I met yesterday, my twin sisters, and some underage congressional pages and we can all get married and have one big happy family right?

If your argument is "equal rights for everyone" then you must agree with this.

'Consentual' is the key ingrediant you're missing. Dogs, cats mice, and children have no ability to consent, thier minds are not devolped enough.. My second thought is you need to get out more.

Polygamy is not a problem IMO and soon won't be when Shaira law Comes to the west.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: JD50
Equal rights for everyone right guys? So I can bring my dog, cat, 4 girls I picked up at a bar the other night, a couple of guys I met yesterday, my twin sisters, and some underage congressional pages and we can all get married and have one big happy family right?

If your argument is "equal rights for everyone" then you must agree with this.

'Consentual' is the key ingrediant you're missing. Dogs, cats mice, and children have no ability to consent, thier minds are not devolped enough.. My second thought is you need to get out more.

Polygamy is not a problem IMO and soon won't be when Shaira law Comes to the west.

Cool, as long as I can marry all of my siblings then I'll be happy

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Great e-mail from National Review Online Link

I am reading the NJ decision. So far, I think I want to marry my mother. Seriously. Our relationship could not be more committed, and I want her to enjoy my health care insurance. The legislature doesn't have to call it "marriage." They can call it "Mommiage."

He has a point, if we can define 'marriage' as between a man and a man, why can't we define it in anyway we want?

Another great e-mail from NRO

If NJ says that "committed" same-sex couples must be afforded the rights of married heterosexual couples, under the NJ constitution, shouldn't unmarried heterosexual couples be afforded the same rights as married couples?

we put artificial barriers all over our laws.

if 21 year olds are allowed to legally drink, than shouldn't 20 year olds be allowed to drink? and what about 19 year olds? and 9 year olds? etc, etc.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: JD50
Equal rights for everyone right guys? So I can bring my dog, cat, 4 girls I picked up at a bar the other night, a couple of guys I met yesterday, my twin sisters, and some underage congressional pages and we can all get married and have one big happy family right?

If your argument is "equal rights for everyone" then you must agree with this.

'Consentual' is the key ingrediant you're missing. Dogs, cats mice, and children have no ability to consent, thier minds are not devolped enough.. My second thought is you need to get out more.

Polygamy is not a problem IMO and soon won't be when Shaira law Comes to the west.

Cool, as long as I can marry all of my siblings then I'll be happy

Wow, you're really reaching aren't ya? Go away troll.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50
Equal rights for everyone right guys? So I can bring my dog, cat, 4 girls I picked up at a bar the other night, a couple of guys I met yesterday, my twin sisters, and some underage congressional pages and we can all get married and have one big happy family right?

If your argument is "equal rights for everyone" then you must agree with this.

Actually, no they don't.

But its my right. Why must I be a second class citizen?

Doofus, the reason is that the state must have rational justification for discrimination.

That exists for some things and not others. Now, your mockery of the issue of the denial of equality of an important right makes you a class A cretin in my book.

You too are a bigot, unable to understand how gay people are equally human with others and perhaps better than you, so when they get equal rights, you try to mock.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: loki8481
we put artificial barriers all over our laws.

if 21 year olds are allowed to legally drink, than shouldn't 20 year olds be allowed to drink? and what about 19 year olds? and 9 year olds? etc, etc.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

If that is true then why can't we but barriers on marriage?

 

[Craig234]

Because, John, barriers have to be within the law, and since there sensibly are laws against arbitrary discrimination allowing bigotry, you have to have justification.

*Age* limitations on drinking have a rational basis, a justification; the fact that the law cannot be perfect (21 is partly arbitrary) is no argument for having no barrier (12 years olds can buy liquor).

*Sexual orientation* barriers have no justificatoin for restricting marriage, but for bigotry.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: loki8481
we put artificial barriers all over our laws.

if 21 year olds are allowed to legally drink, than shouldn't 20 year olds be allowed to drink? and what about 19 year olds? and 9 year olds? etc, etc.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

If that is true then why can't we but barriers on marriage?

we can. we are. we do.

if the incestuous couples of america can rally together and lobby the government, I'd hear their argument with an open mind. but I can't really think of anyone that's attracted *only* to their siblings.