<p>Republican Judges dissent from Democrats to support Gay Marriage in NJ
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/nyregion/26marriage.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/nyregion/26marriage.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th</a></p>
<p>I think the important aspect of this decision was to affirm that gay couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples, which, in reality, is what the battle was all about. Whether the legislature decides on the use of the word marriage or civil unions, the result is the same, regarding the rights guaranteed. It’s a step in the right direction. I was particularly happy to see the congregations of Episcopalian pastors Mark Harris and Denis Winslow celebrating the decision which will allow the couple to formalize their partnership.</p>
<p>
I agree completely. It was a very thoughtful and intelligent decision, it seems to me, somewhat out of historical character for the NJ Supreme Court. I think the nomenclature is a legitimate issue. Gay men have been important mentors to my musician/actor son. I know their significant others, I like them, and I support efforts to find a way to legally recognize their long-term relationships.</p>
<p>Good grief, Fountain, </p>
<p>Where did you get that headline?</p>
<p>Because the democratic judges believe in the political process, they’re either homophobes or bigots?</p>
<p>I sure would like to know where you learned logical reasoning and inference. </p>
<p>Or, do you really have another agenda, like trying to brand a political party with negatives? Not that the NJ democrats need any help in that regard anyway…</p>
<p>NMD,</p>
<p>Not at all! In fact I think the decision was a good one…a very good one–it’s what the market will bear, after all. </p>
<p>What’s more I think that the Democrats on the High Court–all things considered–are probably on the right side of this issue, not the Republicans.</p>
<p>…no, somewhat tongue-n-cheek, I was addressing the hysteria manifest here on cc by our “Democrat” friends-n-protesters on this issue. It would be difficult to find a political thread over the last year or so wherein “Conservatives” or “Republicans” are not blasted as “bigots” or “homophobes” in their totality for the sole reason that they are assumed to–lock-step–oppose gay marriage (uniformly termed “gay marriage”, not “civil unions,” to be clear).</p>
<p>So it occurred to me to wonder whether or not the same “take-no-prisoners,” “shot ‘em all and let god sort ‘em out” crowd would feel the same way when it is “Democrats” that are denying marriage licenses to gay couples.
That is, is it a bunch of hysterical ‘bull spit’ or is it a reasoned and heartfelt position of compassion.</p>
<p>…I’m guessing the former. </p>
<p>What do you think, NMD? </p>
<p>Will the usual liberal/Democrat suspects show up
harrumphing on their soap-box to cast the first stone,
or will they swallow their spittle
so’s to not call a penalty on their own?</p>
<p>Let’s see, shall we…</p>
<p>fountain,</p>
<p>OK. Got it. </p>
<p>You asked what I think? I try to ignore the issue as much as possible. :)</p>
<p>I think gays should be entitled to the same legal rights if they enter into the proper sort of legal union. But what it is called, I could care less about, and find it sad that we’ve (as a nation) have spent so much time debating the title of a legal union. And, what ever happened to compromise?</p>
<p>There are so many more pressing issues, both within our country and outside that it is sad to see an issue be so divisive for so little return.</p>
<p>NMD seems to be having trouble adjusting to the notion that we Right-wing extremists aren’t as easily categorized as he thought. BOO!</p>
<p>Well, plenty of right wing extremists (don’t know if you really are a right wing extremist, Driver) can be easily categorized as gay marriage haters, and some of them are true homophobes. </p>
<p>The fact that the Republican NJ justices did the right thing speaks volumes about them as people, but doesn’t excuse the extremists in their party.</p>
<p>Driver,</p>
<p>Actually, I knew that already. But, still, the categories haven’t changed:</p>
<ul>
<li> warmonger</li>
<li> social luddite</li>
<li> economic luddite</li>
<li> brain dead</li>
<li> emotionally crippled</li>
<li> living dead in general</li>
</ul>
<p>:) (and the same terms could be applied to many of my liberal friends, too!)</p>
<p>The problem is that some of you right wing exremists populate more than one category. Take for instance my former neighbor, a war-mongering social/economic luddite. How do I categorize someone like that?</p>
<p>Seriously, it is interesting seeing interests and agendas overlap. My favorite was in '04 when both Bob Barr and Dick Armey worked for the ACLU. What a curious collaboration!</p>
<p>allmusic, homophobia is hardly restricted to the right wing. It is just that <strong><em>some</em></strong> members of the right wing chose to use it as a wedge issue.</p>
<p>here’s a thought. maybe the terminology traditionally associated with ‘marriage’ is simply outdated.</p>
<p>not sure where all of you are, but where I am most people refer to their spouse/SO/whatever as their ‘partner.’ this is an inclusive and descriptive term carrying little of the baggage of ‘husband’ or ‘wife’.</p>
<p>i tend to doubt it, but perhaps the 4 who are bringing it to the legislature to decide simply feel that…as many progressives ((not homophobes, not bigots)) do that the time is ripe for a ‘reconceptualization’ and ‘reframing’ in general.</p>
<p>a-a-a-and how do we know that the Republicans on the NJ Supreme Court weren’t simply trying to energize the right wing to defeat Bob Menendez and retain GOP control over the Senate?</p>
<p>[note: This was a joke. Republicans in New Jersey tend to be a bit different compared to Republicans in, say, Missouri. All parts of the party are represented, of course, but it’s center is probably more good government, pro-business, establishment-oriented and less Christian conservative social agenda. Go back 20-30 years and you’ll find that the Republicans were the pro-civil rights party in the Mid-Atlantic states, and some of that remains.]</p>
<p>Regardless of anyone’s stand is this matter, the ruling itself is muddled; at least the lengthy except I read this morning. I’ll read the text in full tonight. Interestingly, the NY Times and the NJ Star-Ledger desribed the ruling to two very distinct ways.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But don’t you find it just a tad interesting that the official position of the Democratic Party is also against gay marriage? I guess it is just another issue that they like to have both ways: “we are against gay marriage for good and pure reasons (translated: because we don’t want to lose your vote) but those evil Republicans are against gay marriage because they hate gay people.” It’s kind of one of those “I was ‘for it’ before I voted against it”, kind of things.</p>
<p>Reedies approve</p>
<p>*And you know what? Unlike Massachusetts, NJ doesn’t have a law that forbids out-of-state couples to marry there if their home state wouldn’t let them</p>
<p>Score.</p>
<p>The governor is a FMA fanboy, though, so it looks like the implementation depends mostly on the legislature - but even minimal compliance would be a hell of a lot of progress compared to the country as a whole. And then there are all the “full faith and credit” lawsuits in other states that will necessarily follow, and perhaps a Supreme Court ruling not too far down the road…*</p>
<p>I thought Massachusetts didn’t have that law either until the SJC decided that homosexual marriage was constitutionally required. My suspicion is that if the NJ Legislature opts for “marriage” (unlikely) NJ will also have such a statute.</p>
<p>Ah, FF,</p>
<p>This is getting scary: we agree on an issue. </p>
<p>Much as I have not liked (to put it mildly) the current administration or the republican leadershp in congress, I had a rude shock when I learned who the new house committee chairs will be if the Dems take over.</p>
<p>Geesh, are guys like Dingell and Rangel still around? Where is sane leadership when we need it. Remember my terms above? Well, these guys deserve a new one: social neanderthals. (my apologies to those scientists who recently showed that neanderthals were actually quite bright and even had bigger brains than we modern homo sapiens do. I’m using the “classical” definition of the term)</p>
<p>I think it’s interesting that this is a topic with lots of “crossover” - I find myself agreeing with CC posters on this issue who I usually duel with on more traditionaly “political” ones. I think a lot of it has to do with the rift between “social conservatives” and economic conservatives. Just as the Dems had a hard time holding the alliance between northern liberals and Dixiecrats together 25 years ago, I suspect that the Republican party is going to find itself struggling to keep its very disparate allied groups together in the coming years.</p>
<p>Anitaw - the problem with “partner” is that it already has a meaning - common and legal - in the business world. I have a “wife” and I also have a “partner” - the guy I practice law with. It gets confusing when you mix the two up. “Domestic partner” or 'life partner" vs. “business partner” is just a little precious for my tastes, as well.</p>
<p>I don’t have an answer for this one.</p>
<p>The NYTimes article plucks sentences from the 90 page decision out of context and places them next to each other in their article. I had a really hard time reconciling the following 2 apparently contradictory sentences:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, both of the quoted sentences that include quotation marks and begin with a capital W, are not in fact sentences but part of longer sentences and the “w” is a lowercase “w” preceded by a comma in both cases. Secondly, the first sentence (phrase) appears on page 51 of the decision while the second phrase appears on page 33. </p>
<p>The Court ruled unanimously (7 - 0 ) that same sex couples deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples and left it to the legislature as to whether they can call it “marriage.” The dissenting opinion was only over whether the court should decide to let gays call their union “marriage.”</p>
<p>So the split in the court is not really over their feelings towards gays or gay rights, it is a difference in opinion of the jurisdiction of the court vs responsibility of the legislature.</p>
<p>Care to read the opinion? (Didn’t think so! I sure as heck didn’t read the whole thing, just searched for some key phrases)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/a-68-05.pdf[/url]”>http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/a-68-05.pdf</a></p>
<p>edit - ok, I admit to being a little dense. In the quote above, the first sentence was the judge stating that gays deserved equal rights, while the second sentence was his argument that they did not have the right to call it “marriage,” consistent with the decision.</p>
<p>The trouble with defining marriage or civil unions on a state by state basis is that it still doesn’t solve the most egregious unfairness of it all - the federal tax code and the ability of one state to not recognize a union that is legal in another state. I really think we need a national consensus on this issue.</p>
<p>We are the union of the 50 states. This will be a patchwork of varying solutions.</p>