NJ Court rules on gay marriage

[Judy G. Russell]

The NJ Supreme Court was called upon today to rule on the question of the legality of gay marriage. For the first time in this heated debate, it seems to me that a court has almost gotten it right:

"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 [of the NJ Constitution]. 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."

This is getting closer to where I think we should be: the only union the state should be involved in recognizing is a civil union, heterosexual or homosexual. Marriage, as a religious sacrament, is between individuals and their churches and the state shouldn't be entangled with that at all.

[ktinkel]

This is getting closer to where I think we should be: the only union the state should be involved in recognizing is a civil union, heterosexual or homosexual. Marriage, as a religious sacrament, is between individuals and their churches and the state shouldn't be entangled with that at all.Amen!!!

Interesting good news, I think.

[Mike Landi]

the only union the state should be involved in recognizing is a civil union, heterosexual or homosexual. Marriage, as a religious sacrament, is between individuals and their churches and the state shouldn't be entangled with that at all.

<sigh> If it only were so. Governments should sanction and regulate civil contracts, which is what a marriage is from a state point or view.

Marriage as a religious institution should be left to houses of worship and those who lead them. Unfortunately, getting the state to relinquish something they have taken is futile.

[Judy G. Russell]

Interesting good news, I think.It is indeed good news, even if it isn't everything that the gay community might have wanted. Still, it is the absolute best politically smart decision for the gay community. The Court has essentially said: "We don't care how you do it, but you must treat every committed couple the same under the law in terms of rights and benefits." Almost every survey I've ever seen where people are asked if gays should be given the same benefits (pension, health, wills, etc.), people say yes in good numbers. But when those same people are asked if gays should be allowed to marry, that one word makes people say no. So give up the #$%$ word for cryin' out loud!!! With that one word not there, it's highly unlikely NJ will even consider the ban-gay-marriage route so many other states have taken -- because it isn't "marriage" that gays are being allowed, it's rights and benefits.

Then when the dust settles from this, we can all try to move towards civil unions for everybody and get the state entirely out of the marriage business.

[Judy G. Russell]

<sigh> If it only were so. Governments should sanction and regulate civil contracts, which is what a marriage is from a state point or view.
Marriage as a religious institution should be left to houses of worship and those who lead them. Unfortunately, getting the state to relinquish something they have taken is futile.I'm not so sure this is impossible, Mike. People seem to be getting more and more fed up with the intertwining of government and religion, and I think a fair number of voters might really go for this.

Eventually, even if not now.

[ktinkel]

Then when the dust settles from this, we can all try to move towards civil unions for everybody and get the state entirely out of the marriage business.And in fact, a civil union should probably be required of everyone. Marriage, the sacrament, will be a matter of preference.

Separating church and state in this aspect at least.

[Judy G. Russell]

And in fact, a civil union should probably be required of everyone. Marriage, the sacrament, will be a matter of preference. Separating church and state in this aspect at least.That's long been my position -- the state has no business whatsoever in recognizing "marriage" -- a religious and sacramental term. Let everybody have a civil union, and then leave them and their churches to do whatever they want as to "marriage."

[Lindsey]

This is getting closer to where I think we should be: the only union the state should be involved in recognizing is a civil union, heterosexual or homosexual. Marriage, as a religious sacrament, is between individuals and their churches and the state shouldn't be entangled with that at all.
I'm with you on that; unfortunately, there will be a constitutional amendment on the Virginia ballot this November to prohibit same-sex marriage. Even more unfortunately, the legislature in the process made the wording so sweeping that it may well make life much more difficult for unmarried heterosexual couples as well. It's possible that the amendment would, for example render unconstitutional the application of domestic violence laws to unmarried people. That may sound absurd, but that is exactly what is being argued in Ohio (http://votenova.wordpress.com/2006/06/22/ohio-matters/), which has a similar amendment. (What strikes me as a good analysis of this issue here (http://baconsrebellion.blogspot.com/2006/08/virginias-marriage-amendment-not-just.html#c115560394050701433).

The one good thing is that opponents of the amendment managed to get the full language included on the ballot, rather than just a summary. When people read it and stop to think about it, support for it tends to drop off drastically. And support for the amendment has been dropping over time. But it's still at about 52% in favor of approval. :(

Language on the ballot:

"Shall Article I (the Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to state:

'That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.

"This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.?"
What a profanation, to amend the state's Bill of Rights to RESTRICT rights.

--Lindsey

[Mike]

Several of my straight co-workers ran into my office to tell me the news. <g>

Kudos for the justices!

[Mike Landi]

I'm not so sure this is impossible, Mike. People seem to be getting more and more fed up with the intertwining of government and religion, and I think a fair number of voters might really go for this.

Eventually, even if not now.

I'm more pessimistic. The machinery of government is very resistant to change and to begin the process of getting government out of anyaspect of people's lives would mean some group, some special interest group, would lose power (and money). Both parties are addicted to power and grovel for money.

[Judy G. Russell]

I'm more pessimistic. The machinery of government is very resistant to change and to begin the process of getting government out of anyaspect of people's lives would mean some group, some special interest group, would lose power (and money). Both parties are addicted to power and grovel for money.I don't mean to suggest it could be quick or easy. But I do have some hope it'll happen eventually. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but perhaps those of your sons.

[Lindsey]

I don't mean to suggest it could be quick or easy. But I do have some hope it'll happen eventually. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but perhaps those of your sons.
One thing for sure: I would never have expected the Rehnquist court to overturn Lawrence v Kansas. If that can happen, I guess nothing is impossible.

I listened to a pair of programs on the local PBS station tonight debating the proposed amendment to prohibit civil unions. The logic of the amendment's proponents is sometimes dizzingly circular. One woman was arguing that of course you cannot have same-sex marriage, because marriage is for procreation and raising children, and same-sex couples cannot have biological children. What about adoption? Oh, she said, they should not be allowed to adopt, because that would mean bringing a child into the home of an unmarried couple...

One very interesting thing, though, is that in the second program, which featured a panel of four local clergymen of various denominations, one of the two panel members opposed to the amendment was a Baptist minister. (I keep trying to tell you guys that not all Baptists are cut from the same mould.)

--Lindsey

[MollyM/CA]

I heard exactly that argument on PBS today, better and more clearly and emphatically stated than I've heard it ever before: that ALL marriage should be a civil contract and not subject to screwing-over by religiopolitik. And as an afterthought something like let the churches marry them afterward if they want. In other words, do as France and other civilized countries do.

Not that the state (or states?) couldn't still define the limits of the civil contract but it seems to me that it would pull the nails out of the 'you can't marry because' campaign platforms.

Molly

[Judy G. Russell]

the proposed amendment to prohibit civil unions...I am simply amazed... just amazed... that anybody would want to prohibit civil unions. Just exactly how does the willingness of two people to commit themselves to each other in the eyes of the state hurt anybody????

[Judy G. Russell]

What a profanation, to amend the state's Bill of Rights to RESTRICT rights.Hard to believe, isn't it? The home state of Patrick Henry ("Give me Liberty or give me Death!") and all that...

[Judy G. Russell]

Several of my straight co-workers ran into my office to tell me the news. <g> Kudos for the justices!New Jersey is a very blue Blue State... thank heavens!

[Judy G. Russell]

it would pull the nails out of the 'you can't marry because' campaign platforms.That it would. It's hard to tar somebody with the "gay marriage" brush if the only marriages are those the churches perform...

[Lindsey]

I heard exactly that argument on PBS today, better and more clearly and emphatically stated than I've heard it ever before: that ALL marriage should be a civil contract and not subject to screwing-over by religiopolitik.
The interesting thing is, this is exactly the way it was in 17th-century Massachusetts. For the Puritans, the marriage was strictly a civil matter, not a religious one. (Not that they didn't discipline members of the community that engaged in fornication, of course.)

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

I am simply amazed... just amazed... that anybody would want to prohibit civil unions. Just exactly how does the willingness of two people to commit themselves to each other in the eyes of the state hurt anybody????
I have never heard anybody even attempt to explain that. They always divert the discussion to some other question. The closest they ever come is to make some vague statement about "what is best for the children." One woman on PBS's discussion last night claimed it would make her children think that one of their parents was expendable, which I found totally ludicrous.

The amendment doesn't explicitly say that civil unions are prohibited, of course, but that what the language actually does. Seems to me it also prohibits any recognition of common-law marriages.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Hard to believe, isn't it? The home state of Patrick Henry ("Give me Liberty or give me Death!") and all that...
The home state of the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (drafted by Thomas Jefferson and opposed, ironically, by none other than Patrick Henry himself) and whose state bill of rights (written by George Mason) was the model for the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution.

--Lindsey

[Mike]

New Jersey is a very blue Blue State... thank heavens!
Probably more blue than California, which is blue only along the coast. Of course, over 60% of the population lives along the coast.

[Judy G. Russell]

The amendment doesn't explicitly say that civil unions are prohibited, of course, but that what the language actually does. Seems to me it also prohibits any recognition of common-law marriages.Yep, it definitely does prohibit recognition of common-law marriages. That, in and of itself, isn't a bad thing -- but to drop civil unions entirely is ridiculous.

[Judy G. Russell]

The home state of the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (drafted by Thomas Jefferson and opposed, ironically, by none other than Patrick Henry himself) and whose state bill of rights (written by George Mason) was the model for the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution.You've come a long way, baby... and NOT in the right direction (only in the Right direction!).

[Judy G. Russell]

Probably more blue than California, which is blue only along the coast. Of course, over 60% of the population lives along the coast.We have pockets of red -- but for the most part even the Republicans tend to be moderate (ala Tom Kean Sr. -- Jr. is another story altogether...).

[Lindsey]

Yep, it definitely does prohibit recognition of common-law marriages. That, in and of itself, isn't a bad thing
I'm not so sure I agree. Seems to me that if a couple has been in an all-but-married relationship for a long period of time, and have had children together, which one of the partners has sacrificed career opportunities to care for, that the caretaker partner should not suffer economic deprivation because the other partner decides to move on.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

You've come a long way, baby... and NOT in the right direction (only in the Right direction!).
The 18th century was definitely Virginia's golden age. <sigh>

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

The 18th century was definitely Virginia's golden age. <sigh>
So Far. Tomorrow is another day. We can hope...

[Lindsey]

So Far. Tomorrow is another day. We can hope...
Yeah. I'm afraid it's going to take a lot of tomorrows to get us back on the right track, though.

--Lindsey

[Mike]

We have pockets of red -- but for the most part even the Republicans tend to be moderate...
As with everything else, here people run the entire range. The Central Valley isn't that different from the midwest.

[Judy G. Russell]

Yeah. I'm afraid it's going to take a lot of tomorrows to get us back on the right track, though.No doubt about that. Dealing with a massive deficit, tax cuts for the rich and a war and war spending... oh brother...

[Judy G. Russell]

As with everything else, here people run the entire range. The Central Valley isn't that different from the midwest.Keep in mind that California is -- to put it mildly -- several times larger than New Jersey. So we tend to have the same range, perhaps, but fewer at the extreme ends on either side.

[Lindsey]

No doubt about that. Dealing with a massive deficit, tax cuts for the rich and a war and war spending... oh brother...
Yeah; talk about a poisoned chalice -- that's exactly what whoever wins the next presidential election is going to get.

--Lindsey

[Mike]

...but fewer at the extreme ends on either side.
Yeah, we do have plenty of extremists, of all types. <g>

[Judy G. Russell]

Yeah; talk about a poisoned chalice -- that's exactly what whoever wins the next presidential election is going to get.Makes you wonder why anybody would want it!

[Judy G. Russell]

Yeah, we do have plenty of extremists, of all types. <g>You have moderate extremists?

[sidney]

You have moderate extremists?

Yes, here is a manifesto from the Unitarian Jihad (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/04/08/DDG27BCFLG1.DTL) printed in the San Francisco Chronicle.

[Lindsey]

Yes, here is a manifesto from the Unitarian Jihad (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/04/08/DDG27BCFLG1.DTL) printed in the San Francisco Chronicle.
Ohmygod (be he/she one or three or only just two and a half)! The Unitarians are threatening to bore us all to death!! Aiiiiiiyeeeee!! Run for the hills!!

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Makes you wonder why anybody would want it!
To keep the other guy from getting it, obviously! That what you are winning is something nobody in his right mind would want is beside the point.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

To keep the other guy from getting it, obviously! That what you are winning is something nobody in his right mind would want is beside the point.Well, she says, cynic mode on, I suppose if you have lots of Halliburton stock and can start a war where bunchloads of no-bid contracts go to Halliburton, it might be worth it...

[Judy G. Russell]

Yes, here is a manifesto from the Unitarian Jihad (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/04/08/DDG27BCFLG1.DTL) printed in the San Francisco Chronicle.ROFL!! I love it!

[Mike]

You have moderate extremists?
Yup, as Sidney has proven.

BTW, we're both fine after the melee in the Castro Tuesday night. We were in the bar all night long, keeping an eye on things there. Brent awakened me on Wednesday morning to tell me that it had gotten to the point where shots were fired. We were just amazed.

[Judy G. Russell]

BTW, we're both fine after the melee in the Castro Tuesday night. We were in the bar all night long, keeping an eye on things there. Brent awakened me on Wednesday morning to tell me that it had gotten to the point where shots were fired. We were just amazed.YEEEP! Stupid me, I didn't even think that of course you and Brent would be there -- and I hadn't heard that the violence got that bad. Nine people shot? YEEEEEP! Glad to hear you both are safe. STAY THAT WAY.

[Mike]

...hadn't heard that the violence got that bad.
We didn't hear about it until the next morning!

The police believe a couple of gangs wandered into the crowd and recognized each other.

[Lindsey]

Well, she says, cynic mode on, I suppose if you have lots of Halliburton stock and can start a war where bunchloads of no-bid contracts go to Halliburton, it might be worth it...
It may be too late for that -- recent news reports indicate that the contractors packing up and leaving -- they've collected their money for a job still undone, and have now decided that Iraq is just too dangerous. (And that picture you have of rats streaming off of a badly listing ship is probably all too appropriate...)

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

It may be too late for that -- recent news reports indicate that the contractors packing up and leaving -- they've collected their money for a job still undone, and have now decided that Iraq is just too dangerous. (And that picture you have of rats streaming off of a badly listing ship is probably all too appropriate...)And of course according to the New York Times: Iraq is still an open-ended tragedy, and there is mounting evidence that without vigilant, independent monitoring, reconstruction contracts will waste American tax dollars without delivering the results that Iraqis have been promised. Still, the Republican-controlled Congress has voted to close down, as of next Oct. 1, the one effective oversight agency that has shown it could produce results.

The deadline for ending the work of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction was included in the conference report on a huge military authorization bill — inserted at the last minute in the back room by the staff of Duncan Hunter, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.Sigh...

[Lindsey]

Yeah, I saw that about the inspector general on Salon.com. Congress has been after him for some time now for asking uncomfortable questions and making life hard for some of their biggest campaign donors (the military contractors). A May 10, 2006 item (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/05/10/iraqmoney/index.html) from Salon's "War Room" blog:

A GOP solution for misused Iraq funds: Lock out the inspector general

The last time we heard from special inspector general Stuart Bowen (http://www.cfr.org/publication/10561/bowen.html), he was reporting that sabotage, poor management and corruption plague U.S. reconstruction efforts in Iraq. As the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114722433890748480.html?mod=blogs) is reporting this morning, the Republican-led Congress has moved quickly to address the problem: It's denying Bowen authority to monitor the $21 billion in reconstruction funds included in the latest Iraq funding bill.

As the Journal explains, Bowen's critical reports (http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/huge-fraud-exposed-in-iraq-contracts/2006/05/01/1146335667610.html) on the misuse of Iraq reconstruction funds have "put him at odds" with some Bush administration officials. In turn, those officials have made "several behind-the-scenes attempts to close down his office." Their efforts have been unsuccessful, but Republicans in Congress have found another way to skin the cat. They're putting the latest round of reconstruction money in the State Department's "foreign operations" account rather than in the "relief and reconstruction" account that Bowen is authorized to monitor. The result: The job of monitoring the new money will fall not to Bowen, who has 55 auditors on staff in Iraq, but to the State Department's inspector general's office, which has a very small Iraq staff and has warned Congress in the past that it can't effectively monitor activities there.

Aides to Republicans on the Senate Appropriations Committee tell the Journal that the change was made at the request of the White House, but they insist that it had nothing to do with avoiding Bowen. A White House spokesman tells the Journal that the switch was made to further the administration's goal of "normalizing our treatment of Iraq assistance."

--Lindsey

[Mike]

Somewhat apropos, today (Saturday), Brent and I saw the news that Neil Patrick Harris ("Dougie Houser") came out, and last month, T.R. Knight (Grey's Anatomy) came out.

We agreed that each time someone with celebrity status comes out, it's good for all gay people, because Ma and Pa MiddleAmerica will realize it's not just a few radicals in San Francisco.

OTOH, that disgraced Evangelical in Colorado Springs (aka, "Ground Zero") doesn't help either side.~

[Judy G. Russell]

Yeah, I saw that about the inspector general on Salon.com. Congress has been after him for some time now for asking uncomfortable questions and making life hard for some of their biggest campaign donors (the military contractors).Simply #$%@# outrageous. If anything would make people believe this war was being fought to line the pockets of the GOP's friends, it's this sort of thing... or should be.

[Judy G. Russell]

Somewhat apropos, today (Saturday), Brent and I saw the news that Neil Patrick Harris ("Dougie Houser") came out, and last month, T.R. Knight (Grey's Anatomy) came out. We agreed that each time someone with celebrity status comes out, it's good for all gay people, because Ma and Pa MiddleAmerica will realize it's not just a few radicals in San Francisco.
Unfortunately, I think it only really helps when because Ma and Pa MiddleAmerica discover it's one of their kids or grandkids or...

OTOH, that disgraced Evangelical in Colorado Springs (aka, "Ground Zero") doesn't help either side.~No, but it does point up the utter hypocrisy of folks like Haggard.

[Lindsey]

Simply #$%@# outrageous.
What's even more outrageous, really, is that with all the corruption, all the hypocrisy, all the cynical manipulation, all the sheer incompetence that has come to light in just the last two years, and as fed up as the vast majority apparently are, judging by the polls that say that about 2/3 of the electorate thinks the country is moving in the wrong direction, with only a little over 1/3 of them approving of Bush's job performance, with majorities preferring to see a Democratic Congress and trusting Democrats over Republicans on every issue on the list, including terrorism and homeland security -- with all that in the political mix this year, the best Democrats can hope for is a narrow majority in the House of Representatives and a razor-thin majority in the Senate (which I don't think they're going to get).

With that kind of record, and that kind of discontent, there should be a massive turnover in Congress. That there isn't going to be is depressing evidence of how moribund our political system has become.

--Lindsey

[Mike]

Unfortunately, I think it only really helps when because Ma and Pa MiddleAmerica discover it's one of their kids or grandkids or...
Yeah, you're right. I didn't capture my thoughts very well. Ma's and Pa's opinions aren't going to be altered. However, their kids (and maybe their grandkids) will realize that there are some successful gay people and may even reconsider whether to continue to live in the closet.

If just one gay kid gets the courage, it's a good thing.